Hi Randy, Well, the first paragraph in section 1.4 is neither clear nor necessary. I would suggest to remove this paragraph. Is that OK for you?
BR, Tianran > -----Original Message----- > From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 12:51 PM > To: opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Thoughts on draft-song-opsawg-ntf > > Hi - > > On 10/17/2018 6:37 PM, Tianran Zhou wrote: > > I do not mean to say the SNMP design is problematic. > > But I think it's not designed for periodically getting operational > > data, which is one important case for streaming telemetry. > > That's one of the possible use cases for RFC 2981 or RFC 3877, and was > considered in their design. If you think those MIB modules are inadequate, > it would be helpful for you to spell out exactly why they fail to meet the > need. > > > Compared with current YANG-Push > > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push) > > activity, user can get any data described in existing YANG data store > > (not only the notifications), and can appoint the period when the data > > originator pushes the event. > > I really do recommend you look at RFC 2981. It provides exactly that > capability. Again, if you think RFC 2981 does not meet that need, I ask you > to spell out exactly how the design is deficient. > > Randy > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
