Re: Update to Netconf Notifications Draft

[Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>]

Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:
> Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > A comment on section 3.8, interleaving messages.
> 
> The larger issue that is still unresolved is how
> important this feature is to have.  The extended RPC
> approach is much simpler, at the cost of the resources
> for an additional session.  The extended RPC approach
> is also much better for the 'ping' scenario than
> a special notification type for 'RPC reply'.

Altough I personally prefer the endless RPC model for events, I don't
think it's "much simpler", at least not from an implementation point
of view.  The agent side might be simpler in some case (e.g. it
doesn't have to deal with a modify command), but on the other hand the
manager side needs to synchronize events if it wants to emulate a
modify operation.

Also, even if the model in Sharon's draft is used for events, the
endless RPC can still be used for ping-like commands.


/martin

--
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/>