Re: Why are we doing netconf?

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 08:54:12AM -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
 
> <Juergen>
> 
> I assume that any reasonable data modeling language should have the
> property that notifications defined with the data modeling language are
> predictable.
> 
> I fail to see a requirement here for the development of a NETCONF
> _protocol_ extension. If I am wrong, can you please help me phrase this
> as a protocol requirement?
> </Juergen>
> 
> Well, there are people who will be evaluating existing solutions against
> these requirements, so I'd prefer to have it in there with a note that
> in Netconf this is part of the content layer, not the protocol
> operations. We will need to have a sense of *how* predictable content
> comes into being, even if it is does in the data model.

So are you saying you want to have a requirement which says:

* solution should leave the definition of notification formats 
  to the data models

I am not really sure I captured the idea here...

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

--
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/>