Re: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-netconf-beep

[Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>]

Brian,

As Andy and I responded to Elwyn, this was discussed within the working
group.  The consensus was at the time that the client knows its a client
and the server knows its a server so this isn't really a problem.  I was
in the minority at the time.  My preference would be two separate BEEP
profiles, and this was in fact the case in an earlier version of the
document, as I recall.

Eliot
ps: whatever tool you're using to generate this email is generating
illegal destination addresses in the "To" field.


Brian Carpenter wrote:
> Discuss:
> (Based on Gen-ART review by Elwyn Davies)
>
> The base NETCONF protocol spec talks about 'client/server' instead of 'manager/agent'. This document uses 'manager/agent' but needs to be
> consistent with the base spec.
>
> The base NETCONF protocol spec requires (in section 2):
>
>   
>>    The transport protocol MUST provide a mechanism to indicate the
>>    session type (client or server) to the NETCONF protocol layer.
>>     
>
> So where does the BEEP mapping do this? If that isn't defined,
> it's a bug.
>
>   

--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>