RE: NETCONF Notifications: Consensus Points

"David B Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net> Tue, 29 November 2005 22:14 UTC

Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EhDkZ-00077B-Bg for netconf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:14:59 -0500
Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17240 for <netconf-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:14:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.54 (FreeBSD)) id 1EhDbv-000Fql-5k for netconf-data@psg.com; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:06:03 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on psg.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
Received: from [204.127.202.55] (helo=sccrmhc11.comcast.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.54 (FreeBSD)) id 1EhDbu-000Fqa-Ec for netconf@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:06:02 +0000
Received: from djyxpy41 (c-24-62-247-149.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.62.247.149]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <2005112922060101100hhujee>; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:06:01 +0000
Reply-To: dbharrington@comcast.net
From: David B Harrington <dbharrington@comcast.net>
To: netconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: NETCONF Notifications: Consensus Points
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:05:58 -0500
Message-ID: <034201c5f531$1403c080$0400a8c0@DJYXPY41>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Thread-Index: AcX0NMwfH6xm3qH0RXWfL+OGyBUB6AAAUqNQ
In-Reply-To: <438B2564.2060903@cisco.com>
Sender: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

I personally prefer "notification" to "event message" because I would
like to see consistency in the terminology used for IETF O&M
protocols. There seem to be three variations - notification, event
notification, and event message; everywhere event notification is
used, the same document also refers to it simply as a notification,
and no document seems to identify what other type of notification
besides event notification is possible. 

Here's my research on the use of "notification" vs. "event message" in
O&M documents:

"notification" - SNMP (rfc3413), IPFIX requirements (rfc3917),
Diameter (rfc3588), Syslog (rfc3164), Opsec Practices
(draft-ietf-opsec-current-practices-02)  

"event message" - Syslog (rfc3164), netconf
(draft-chisholm-netconf-event-01.txt) 

Widening this to a search of RFCs which use notification or event in
their title, and checking for "notification" or "event message" in the
text of the document:

"notification" - Simple New Mail Notification (rfc4146), Requirements
for IPP Notifications (rfc3997), Internet Printing Protocol (IPP):
Event Notifications and Subscriptions (rfc3995), The SPIRITS (Services
in PSTN requesting Internet Services) Protocol (rfc3910), A Presence
Event Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (rfc3856),
Message Disposition Notification (MDN) profile for Internet Message
Access Protocol (IMAP) (rfc3503), An Extensible Message Format for
Delivery Status Notifications (rfc3464), Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
(SMTP) Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs)
(rfc3461), Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event
Notification (rfc3265), The Addition of Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN) to IP (rfc3168), An INVITE-Initiated Dialog Event
Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (rfc4235), Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for Event State Publication
(rfc3903), etc.

"event message" - 

Nuff said?

David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net




--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>