[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: stopping notifications
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 07:55:55AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
Note that in Montreal it was agreed that processing messages just to
produce error messages just did not make sense.
I do not remember this at all.
I do.
RFC 4741, sec. 4.2 does not agree with this statement.
The <rpc-reply> is expected if the <rpc> is received
by the agent. It does not say anything in RFC 4741 about
the agent ignoring <rpc> requests for any reason.
Does it say that requests have to be processed within a given time
interval? A single threaded implementation might just postpone
processing requests...
So remind me why we can't just define this 'interleave' capability,
instead of saying how it works, but punting it to the vendor?
I don't really care that much one way or the other about any
feature in this document. I only care about getting the document
published quickly (i.e., IESG and IETF LC find the draft clear,
complete, and believe independent interoperable
implementations could be created from it).
IMO, it would be better to put a stake in the ground and
add the extra capability to this document, than ignore
the issue completely.
But the current middle ground is not interoperable.
/js
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/>