Joel: 

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 11:31 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'Linda Dunbar'; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] ephemeral requirements - REQ 08 bullet 1

If you mean "leave it in, with the wording that was sent to the list after
the call", then yes, that works for me.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/6/16 10:50 AM, Susan Hares wrote:
> Joel and Linda:
>
> Unless you have an objection, I will leave Ephemeral-REQ-08 bullet 1 in.
>
> Sue
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel Halpern 
> Direct
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 7:50 PM
> To: Linda Dunbar; Joel M. Halpern; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [i2rs] ephemeral requirements - REQ 08 bullet 1
>
> I can live with removing it entirely.  Others had expressed that they 
> felt it was important to include.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 6/1/16 7:48 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>> Joel,
>>
>> Does it hurt if this requirement is removed from the document?
>>
>> To me, it is more to say needing a reliable communication channel 
>> between
> I2RS client and agent (which should be assumed with NETCONF protocol).
> Therefore, I don't think we need to have it in the I2RS Ephemeral 
> requirement.
>>
>> Linda
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 6:13 PM
>> To: Linda Dunbar; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [i2rs] ephemeral requirements - REQ 08 bullet 1
>>
>> Linda, the problem is that there is no such thing as an I2RS 
>> protocol,
> much less version 1 of such a protocol.  If I2RS is using NetConf, the 
> protocol is NetConf.  If it is using RestConf, then that is the protocol.
>>
>> Further, the exact mechanism to express what the agent can do over 
>> these
> protocols is defined by those mechanisms.
>>
>> I can't argue with your observation that there is not much to the
> requirement as reworded.  I consider that it is not vacuous because it 
> confirms that we need the relevant capability information.  I 
> recognize that the NetConf and NetMod working groups have been very good
about doing that.
>>
>> My primary point, as I have said several times on the list, and saqid 
>> on
> the webex, is that the requirement as written was not a description of 
> what we requried, but of a possible (and in my personal view 
> incorrect) way of meeting the requirement.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 6/1/16 6:48 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>>> Joel,
>>>
>>> The existing text and the proposed test mean different things to me. 
>>> The
> existing text is to say support I2RS Version 1, whereas the proposed 
> text states a very obvious statement.
>>>
>>> If I2RS client didn't have the needed "communication mechanisms" to 
>>> I2RS
> agent or can't decide if the communications mechanisms needed is 
> supported, how can I2RS client even start to send commands to I2RS agent?
>>>
>>> Linda
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel M.
>>> Halpern
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 9:48 AM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: [i2rs] ephemeral requirements - REQ 08 bullet 1
>>>
>>> Existing Text:
>>> 1.  protocol version support for I2RS modifications - (e.g.  I2RS
>>>         version 1)
>>>
>>> Proposed Text:
>>> 1. Support for communication mechanisms to enable an I2RS client to
> determine that an I2RS agent supports the mechanisms needed for I2RS 
> operation.
>>>
>>>
>>> This probably is already met by existing NetConf mechanisms.  I 
>>> think it
> is useful to state anyway, so that solution development will verify 
> that it is met.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Joel
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> i2rs mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

Reply via email to