Subject: RE: Why are we doing netconf?

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:23:10 -0500

hi

<Rainer>

*If* the primary motivation to include notifications is to replace
syslog, I think a shared effort with the syslog community would be
benefitial.
</Rainer>

That isn't our primary motivation. It is just that some people feel that
some of the requirements can be met by this existing solution, which is
why it comes up.

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: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:02:05 -0800

> some of the requirements can be met by this existing solution, which is

Probably because we started out on Day One saying
our notification solution was syslog over beep.
Now that ssh is our mandatory transport, be need
to change that plan.  But that doesn't mean abandon
syslog content and reinvent it.

As Chris pointed out, replacing syslog would be a massive
undertaking, one that many people don't prioritize very high.
IMO, except for the list posted by Balazs, there have not been any
interesting or compelling use cases for notifications in the
netconf protocol.

> Sharon

Andy