Re: no interim meeting -- read the rules

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Balazs Lengyel wrote:
> Hi,
> For us notifications are needed mostly not as a logging mechanism but as:
> - a way to notify about configuration changes
> - a way to notify the management system about delayed results of an RPC 
> (e.g. when an RPC initiated action takes 10 minutes to complete we send 
> an immediate reply <started> and a late reply <finished>)



When you explained this the first time it sounded like you
broke the RPC model, but you didn't.  Your 1st RFC can be
seen as a request to start a background task.  Exactly 1 rfc-reply
is sent for this request.  Later you send notifications to
provide status of the background task.  Looks like a good use
of notifications to me.

All of your use cases make sense I think.
You could probably do this with syslog or snmp notifications,
but it also makes sense to use netconf notifications.

Andy


> - to notify the network management system (NMS) about things that might 
> need operator action. (While alarm handling is mostly SNMP there is a 
> need for some other events to be handled by the NMS.)


> For these reasons we do need a notification mechanism. We could use
> - SNMP: but if we have an XML based hierarchical data model with 
> meaningful names using SNMP is not my choice.
> - Syslog: but the message size limit of less then 480 octets seems a 
> problem. Also I like subscription. Adding XML to syslog needs some work. 
> We have to care about a second transport/security mechanism TLS (I don't 
> know if this is a real problem).
> - Netconf-notifications: This would mean a somewhat unified structure 
> within Netconf. Using our XML-based hierarchical data model would be 
> natural.
>
> regards Balazs
>
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > As Dan and Dave H. pointed out, we need to agree on what
> > we are doing and why we are doing it.  Several people
> > have told me (and mentioned on the list) that they
> > don't understand why we are reinventing syslog instead
> > of working on network configuration.
> >
> > So let's write down all the reasons why we need notifications
> > in NETCONF, and why using or extending existing standards
> > instead won't work.
>  >
> > Andy


--
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/>