Re: NETCONF minutes uploaded

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Sharon Chisholm wrote:
> Hi
>
> I couple corrections/clarifications.
>
> 2.6 and 2.7 were separate agenda items and not directly part of the
> Notification draft discussion.
>
> For 2.6, there was consensus that this wasn't the right working group to
> work on a Netconf Monitoring Schema but the group did not discuss the
> document very long and I don't remember any specific objections to the
> content of the document being raised.

There were several mailing list comments that questioned why we needed
particular monitoring data model objects defined at this time, by this WG.

Here is the 2.6 text:

-----
2.6) Monitoring Data Model

There are many objections to the session-specific state data that
is included in the draft, for retrieval with the <get> operation.
The group was in general agreement that data models should
only be included in the document if they are really needed for
interoperability.
------

I think this is consistent with your statement that this wasn't the right
WG.  My text is focusing on the contents of the Notifications draft.
That's what I meant by 'the document'.  I did not mean or say 'any document'.

There is still an open issue with the read-only 'last modified' timestamp
in the profile configuration data model.  A few people (besides me) think
it doesn't need to be there for interoperability.


> Sharon

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/>