RE: Verbs Again (was RE: draft-shafer-netconf-syslog-00.txt)

["Rainer Gerhards" <rgerhards@hq.adiscon.com>]

Andy,

I have to admit that I actually misunderstood you. Both your reply below
as well as the message sent somewhat later made this clear.

If I now understand you correctly, you remind us that the charter calls
for a standardized notification method and related data model - and not
something syslog-specific. I see the reasoning for this position.

HOWEVER, IMHO that implies the discussion about verbs vs. data model on
Phil's draft is the wrong one. What should be discussed firsthand is if
the draft itself is supported by the WG or not. Phil's draft is all
about transporting syslog over netconf. The argument is that there is a
wealth of information in syslog that a netconf manager might want to see
(natively). But still, the focus of the draft is transporting syslog.
The quesion of verbs vs. data model is a secondary one (and I think
there my comments still applys).

I would suggest that we first discuss if the overall idea (transporting
syslog over netconf in *addition* to a generic event notification
transport) is within the scope of this WG. If so, we can then look at
the specifics (like verb usage). I am too inexperienced with netconf to
offer a qualified opinion on that firsthand question. I can, however,
contribute to the details if it is WG consensus to follow that route.

Rainer

>> Phil wants to transport syslog messages. I do not think there is a
> > specific data model for a syslog messages needed, at least 
> at this time
> > and in the NETCONF WG alone. The entity "syslog message" is
> > well-defined, so you do have a single element inside a syslog event
> > notification. Over time, I agree, it would be useful to 
> have an extended
> > data model that specfies detailled semantics for syslog 
> messages (and
> > probably notifiation messages at all). This, however, I think is far
> > beyond the current discussion. I consider it to be a 
> separate effort,
> > probably even in a separate WG that draws people from the syslog and
> > netconf WGs.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure there is WG consensus that the only type
> of notification data that can possibly be delivered
> in netconf is syslog/RAW.
> 
> But you misunderstood my comments anyway.
> 
> The netconf WG is defining standard parameters for the
> configuration of agent filtering of notification delivery.
> There is also the possibility of standard monitoring variables
> for netconf notifications.
> 
> These are the standard data models that I am referring to,
> not the content of syslog messages or any other notification
> content.
> 
> 
> 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/>