[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NETCONF minutes uploaded

Sharon Chisholm wrote:

Hi

Mailing list comments do not belong in meeting minutes unless someone
referred to them at the time. For correct minutes, I feel 2.6 should be
come 3.0 and 2.7 should become 4.0 and I think 2.6 (3.0) should be
modified to reflect the actual meeting discussion.



2.6 refers to the open issue of the last modified timestamp
that is still in the 'profile', in the Notifications draft.

2.7 refers to where the new text for SSH transport support resides,
and putting it in this draft has not been ruled out.  There hasn't
been any decision made yet on that issue.

There were comments in the meeting about this issue.
I believe Martin mentioned that the last-modified timestamp was not needed,
and Simon mentioned that the 'getStreams' data model was not useful at all.

Btw, Section 2 is titled 'Notification Issues', not 'Notification Draft Issues',
since were reviewing the section numbering now.


Sharon


Andy




-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf@andybierman.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 12:43 PM 
To: Chisholm, Sharon (CAR:ZZ00)
Cc: Netconf (E-mail)
Subject: Re: NETCONF minutes uploaded

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/>





--
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/>