Hi,

Per an earlier thread, it appeared to be sufficient to define a paragraph in 
the new RFC which "Updates: RFC 7950", with text that explains how YANG-defined 
notifications are encoded".  I do agree that conceptually, RFC 7950 should not 
contain dependencies on RFC 5277; short of making updates to RFC 7950 itself 
(not considered feasible) this should be a reasonable option.    

--- Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: netmod [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 5:22 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [netmod] notifications

Hi,

if NETCONF WG moves away from RFC 5277, what does it mean for YANG? In my 
opinion, we have two options:

1. remove references to 5277 from the YANG spec and define a notification
   as any data sent asynchronously by the server, or

2. generalize even more and treat a particular notification as just
   another type of data tree.

BTW, the Terminology section in RFC 7950 doesn't contain a definition of a 
notification (unlike pretty much everything else). Is it just an omission or 
was it intentional?

Lada

-------------------- Start of forwarded message --------------------
From: "Mehmet Ersue" <[email protected]>
To: "'Netconf'" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:06:14 +0100
Subject: [Netconf] New Notification and Subscription Features WASFW: 3  Options 
for Subscription & Event Notification draft structure

...

B) NETCONF co-chairs further propose that NETCONF WG should use its energy in 
the future to complete and improve the new notification and subscription RFCs 
and stop maintaining RFC 5277 for issues other than errata.  Note that it is 
required that RFC 5277 and all new work needs to gracefully co-exist in any 
deployment.  

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

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

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

Reply via email to