[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: notification motivation and requirements

David T. Perkins wrote:

HI,

The wording is bad in my description below since it implies that
present day devices can determine when resulting conditions or
events are unexpected consequences of a config change.

So, please change it to the following:
 *) notifications that report changes in device state, or
    transient events so that the mmgmt app can determine
    any unexpected consequences of a configuration change.


Isn't this just a special-case of the general
requirement to provide enough info in each <notification>
so that it can be analyzed by an application independently
of the notification transport mechanism?  (Maybe that is a
new requirement.)

Maybe this is what Randy means by not binding to notification
delivery parameters to the session.

Andy



Thanks for catching my sloppy wording.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 09:28:11AM -0800, David T. Perkins wrote:

*) notifications to report unexpected consequences of
   a configuration change

How does a device distinguish between expected and unexpected
consequences of a configuration change?

/js


Regards,
/david t. perkins


--
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/>





--
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/>