Subject: Re: [i2rs] 2 week WG Adoption call (2/2 to 2/16/2015) - draft-voit-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-00

From: "Ambika Prasad Tripathy (ambtripa)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:36:38 +0000

I support this draft.

I think section 6.5 of RFC5277 restrict to single subscription in a netconf session. If section 6.5 of rfc5277 will be extended to support unique multiple <create-subscription> request is more scalable with this pub-sub model.

Br,

Ambika Prasad Tripathy

From: "Alexander Clemm (alex)" <alex at cisco.com<mailto:[email-masked]>>

Sent: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 21:20:18 +0000

To: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit at cisco.com<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder at jacobs-university.de<mailto:[email-masked]>>

Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas' <jhaas at pfrc.org<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "i2rs at ietf.org<mailto:[email-masked]>" <i2rs at ietf.org<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Susan Hares <shares at ndzh.com<mailto:[email-masked]>>

I agree, this modification will make it more accurate.

As mentioned earlier on the thread, this is a -00 draft and we should expect that some revisions will be needed.

Thanks

--- Alex

-----Original Message-----

From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Voit (evoit)

Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 10:19 AM

To: Juergen Schoenwaelder

Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas'; i2rs at ietf.org; Susan Hares

Subject: Re: [i2rs] 2 week WG Adoption call (2/2 to 2/16/2015) - draft-voit-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-00

> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 05:47:04PM +0000, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:

> > >>    o  limited support for pushed notification of changes.  (Currently

> > >>        notifications are for configuration data only.  And even then,

> > >>        subscription mechanisms for such notifications are

> > >> undefined.)

> > <snip>

> > > I understand all that I think but I still think the text quoted

> > > above is incorrect and this should be fixed. I am not looking for

> > > long explanation, a simple "we will change that text to '...'"

> > > would be more

> efficient.

> > I can just delete everything between the parenthesis.  Would that be

> sufficient?

> This leaves it open what 'limited' means, which I think is not good either.

> Perhaps:

> o change notifications only for data residing in configuration

>   datastores

Works for me.   I will insert that into "-01"

Eric

> /js

> --

> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH

> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany

> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

_______________________________________________

i2rs mailing list

i2rs at ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:05:47 -0500

The 2 WG adoption call and the I2RS interims have discuss this draft.  It
has passed WG adoption call.  Will the authors please submit the correct
draft (per email discussion) to

Draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-00.txt 

As several people pointed out, this is a good place to begin work on these
requirements. 

Sue Hares