Re: Notification Message Processing Model

[Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>]

"Hector Trevino \(htrevino\)" writes:
>Now, given the above, someone may decide to use a single session for
>both rpcs and notifications. This is a lose-lose situation as you point
>out below.

If it's a lose-lose, why allow it?

>One thing that could be done if need be is to allow
>configuration of priorities (prioritize rpcs over notifications or
>viceversa but that's about it) & things run to completion. 

This seems like adding more complexity to handle the additional
complexity of a complex solution.

A long-lived RPC running on a distinct channel is trivial and is
allowed within the existing netconf spec for no additional
protocol-level work.  Just make a capability that defines your RPCs
and you are golden.

Thanks,
 Phil

--
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/>