RE: Session reuse

["Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortel.com>]

hi

But there have also been a number of people who disagreed with this
approach as making netconf unusable and supported intelligent
introduction of new verbs. I think calling consensus on this issue is
premature.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 11:38 AM
To: Balazs Lengyel
Cc: Netconf (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Session reuse


Balazs Lengyel wrote:
> Hello Andy,
> As I remember you mentioned you hoped to reach consensus on session
> reuse before the IETF meeting. Could you summarize how you see the
state 
> of consensus?

I wrote:

   I was hoping we could finish up event classes before the meeting.
   The other issue that seems to be finishing up is the use of existing
   configuration RPCs instead of new subscription RPCs for conveying
   notification generation parameters.


Not session reuse. RPC reuse.

I think there is WG consensus that notification generation parameters
need to be capable of being NV-stored, and that existing RPCs for
manipulating configuration data must be used for this purpose.

There have also been multiple objections to having overlapping
subscription and configuration based mechanisms, so IMO there is also WG
consensus to limit any new RPCs to new features which do not duplicate
existing RPCs.

> Balazs
> 

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/>


--
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/>