RE: Session reuse

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

hi

Another data point is that other popular XML-based network management
solutions in the industry have also chosen to use subscribe and
unsubscribe verbs
	- TMF MTOSI
	- WS-based Notifications

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:22 AM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:ZZ00:EXCH]
Cc: Netconf (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Session reuse


Sharon Chisholm wrote:
> 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.

What is "this approach"?

There isn't any consensus that the new verbs proposed
in the draft are appropriate.

Several people have mentioned that it is inefficient
to require the notification generation and filtering
parameters to be passed to the agent every time a new
session starts.  There have also been strong objections
to multiple mechanisms (filter + profile) to convey
the configuration parameters.  Netconf already has
a model and mechanisms for manipulating NV-stored configuration, which
cannot be ignored or superseded.



> Sharon

Andy

> 
> -----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/>
> 
> 


--
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/>