Re: Notification Decision Point: Named Profiles

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

David B Harrington wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think this is relevant to the question,
>  
> > Why is the filter coupled to a stream?
> > There is nothing in the draft (or the design) that makes this 
> > assumption.
> >
> > From the minutes of the Montreal interim meeting:
> "h) Notification suppression filtering is data-model and 
>    stream dependent."
>
> My interpretation of this is that a filter might be (might need to be)
> designed to apply to a particular (type of) stream. If, for example,
> the SIP community developed a new stream format, then some
> SIP-specific filters might only make protocol-sense with that stream.
> Therefore, one might want to define the relevant stream as part of the
> namedProfile.

Why?

In XML, a QName completely identifies the content.
The SIP-specific filters would be for a SIP-specific
data model, which would have a targetNamespace and a top-level element.

We don't need to reinvent XML.
There is nothing special about a stream, such that it's name
always indicates exactly one namespace and top-level element.
So is this name field kind of a one word description clause?

> dbh

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/>