Subject: RE: NETCONF Notifications: Consensus Points

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 12:37:28 -0500

<Andy, about confirmed notifications>
Because I don't think it is good engineering to add a lot
of complexity for an optional-to-implement feature.
There is way too much of that "kitchen-sink" approach in the IETF.

Let's make it mandatory for everybody to implement if it's worth having.
How many people still want it then?

</Andy, about confirmed notifications>

I don't. It can be added to the current proposal, but I've spoken with a
lot of people who want robust messaging services, but they don't need
this feature.

Sharon

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:28:44 -0800

>lot of people who want robust messaging services, but they don't need

Ok -- "can be added" is sort of a chicken and egg thing.
IMO, it's a non-trivial exercise to properly design and document this 
feature.
The details cannot really be discussed without this exercise though.

I'd like to settle this issue and move the charter proposal forward.

I am declaring that the "application ack" feature is shelved further
until a detailed written solution proposal is presented to the WG for 
consideration.
The WG members can then decide second-order issues such as mandatory vs. 
optional,
based on an evaluation of the proposal.  Until then, we will move on 
without it.

>Sharon

Andy