Subject: example notification seems redundant

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:36:36 -0700

Hi,

The examples in the notification draft aren't
very clear.  It seems like they must be intended
for a session other than the one that made the change,
because all of the info is redundant -- it would be implied
by an <ok>in the rpc-reply, or explicitly identified in the
<rpc-error> elements returned in the rpc-reply.

So why would config changes (ok or error) need to come right
back on the same session, duplicated in the form of a notification?

Wouldn't side effects (e.g., notification that says BGP4 started)
normally be monitored anyway by some notification receiver app?

Andy

--
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/>