Re: Ever onward

[Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>]

Phil,

I agree with your general assessment.  Snipping down to the more 
interesting parts:

> The following issues have been sufficiently discussed with no
> concensus appearing:
>
>   2.*, 4.2, 13.9, 13.10, 13.11: Notifications
>      Status: no agreeable model, mechanism, or requirement

I propose that they be removed from the base and that a capability be 
added later, if we can agree in more detail.

>   3.*: Channels
>      Status: no agreeable model, mechanism, or requirement

No need for them to be in the base, but they clearly need to be in the 
mapping document that covers BEEP (can't have BEEP without at least one 
channel ;-)

>   12.1: <rpc-abort>
>      Status: not proven worthy
>
>   12.2: <rpc-abort-reply>
>      Status: useless without <rpc-abort>
>
>   12.3: <rpc-progress>
>      Status: not proven worthy
>
>
> Additionally, the following issues have not generated enough
> discussion for a concensus to appear.  Lack of discussion implies
> lack of interest implies non-issue.  Let's close 'em fast.  They
> can become capabilities in the future.
>
>   13.12.1: Multiple concurrent locks
>   13.15.2: Implicit Rollback
>   13.17.1: last-known-good config

Agree.

> This leaves us with the following issues:
>
>   5.1: End of message directive
>      Status: Need some sort of framing; is "<?eom?>" or "&&" sufficient?

<?eom?> seems to be good enough.  Reasons for the other?

>   6.2: SOAP header usage
>      Status: unknown

Not a matter for the base document, but for the mapping document.  Move 
forward on the base document and let the mapping document trail.

>   7.1: Need to compile a list of criteria then prioritize the list
>      Status: delay this until we have some experience with netconf

I propose we discuss this in Korea.

>   10.2: User named databases
>      Status: Need some thought and some proposals
>
>   11.1.1: How should a capability be represented in the <hello> exchange?
>      Status: Not sure what the exactness of precise elements buys us
>
>   12.6: Need to finalize all fields in the <rpc-error> element
>      Status: needs work
>
>   14.1) Subset specification
>      Status: Element subtree filtering is in the spec now,
>       but this issues has an impact on data modeling, and
>       is most likely specific to the data model.
>
>   15.2) Data Naming Protocol Impact
>      Status: needs heavy thought


With the exception of my one comment above, I agree with this:

> Of these eight issues, 1 or 2 should be delayed for now, so the
> work list shrinks to something quite manageable.
>
> These lists are strawmen.  Please comment asap.
>
> Thanks,

And thank you.

Eliot


--
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/>