Re: on <close-session>

[Simon Leinen <simon@limmat.switch.ch>]

Eliot Lear writes:
> I'm not sure if this is an argument for SHOULD or what, but here's
> one additional thought..

> If the agent loses touch with the manager it could be for one or two
> reasons.  Either the manager intended to drop the connection or it
> didn't.  The key here is that the agent can't tell which is the
> case, and so even *if* the manager wanted to see status it couldn't.

> Under the "be conservative" principle we should assume that the
> manager wanted status, and so that argues for stopping when you
> realize there's a problem.

But maybe what the manager really WANTED was for the agent to perform
the request, and the manager merely WISHED to be informed about the
status.  In that case it would be better for the agent to continue
serving requests even though it cannot send back any status.

My gut feeling is that as a manager, I would normally prefer my
commands being executed even when I cannot receive status because the
channel breaks during the session.

Of course this is less true when the requests are really only about
getting information, i.e. "show" commands.  But for requests with side
effects, typically the side effects are more important to me than the
status response.
-- 
Simon.


--
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/>