-----Original Message-----
From: David B Harrington [mailto:dbharrington@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 5:20 AM
To: 'Balazs Lengyel'; 'Andy Bierman'
Cc: 'trac@tools.ietf.org'; 'netconf@ops.ietf.org'
Subject: Netconf Issue Tracker - features
Hi,
Just so people on this list understand about trac...
I had assumed that my email comments would be recorded in
trac, since trac was included in the To: list of my email;
apparently that does not happen.
If I understand Balacz's comment, entering comments directly
into the trac page records the comment in trac, but does not
send an email to the WG showing the comment was made.
I am getting a number of trac emails that have no content,
just the title of the issue. I notice that Balacz responded
to a previous message from Hideki, but I never saw a
non-empty email from Hideki and his comment does not seem to
be logged within trac.
Maybe trac has some settings that can be modified to make
sure comments are sent to the list, or the trac@ address logs
comments.
Until we can learn about how to configure the tool better, to
make sure the chairs have a clear record of comments, I
recommend that everybody explicitly send their comments to
the mailing list, and not count on trac to send the email for
you. If you want your comment tracked in trac, then you
should **also** go to the trac page and enter your comment
using the web input tool.
that's my suggestion.
David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net
ietfdbh@comcast.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
[mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Balazs Lengyel
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:45 AM
To: Andy Bierman
Cc: David B Harrington; trac@tools.ietf.org; netconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Netconf] #9: notification replay in the future
Hello,
I vote for MUST NOT. Why complicate things. Will it bring
us anything?
I submitted the same comment as Dave in trac, but it seems
that there is no email about updates
to trac issues.
Balazs
Andy Bierman wrote:
David B Harrington wrote:
Hi,
MAY NOT or MUST NOT?
MAY NOT (IMO).
That's why it's an open issue ;-)
Andy
David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net
ietfdbh@comcast.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
[mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Netconf
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 4:19 AM
Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: [Netconf] #9: notification replay in the future
#9: notification replay in the future
---------------------------------------------+----------------
--------------
Reporter: ietf@andybierman.com |
Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: draft-ietf-netconf-notification | Version:
Keywords: notification replay |
---------------------------------------------+----------------
--------------
The startTime and/or stopTime parameters to the
create-subscription
operation can be in the future. This is unintended
behavior that
is not part of the original use cases for this feature.
Requiring the agent to replay notifications that have not
happened yet is non-intuitive, and there is some ambiguity
with the meaning of the <replayComplete> notification,
and when it should be sent.
The text should be clear that the agent MAY NOT support
startTime and/or stopTime values in the future.
--
Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/trac/ticket/9>
Netconf <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/trac/>
Issue tracker for the NETCONF Working
Grouprzuzz?????rz))z?w&rz??w
--
to unsubscribe send a message to
netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text