Re: [netconf] Virtual hum for the question on "https-notif" draft

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Eric,

> In light of the RFC 8639 text quoted above, we might question the validity of the hum…or, given the strong preference from the hum, we might question the validity of that constraint in RFC 8639.  If questioning RFC 8639, a better question to ask might be why the configurable “encoding” leaf isn’t mandatory (also eliminating this issue and seemingly cleaner)?
>  
> <eric> The WG feedback during RFC-8639 development was that encoding was often implied from transport.  Therefore mandating exposure of this information in the model was overly verbose, and could result in misconfiguration.  

Okay, but now our first configurable transport can support multiple encodings and 70% of the WG wants to “let the market decide” (i.e., no required, or default, encoding), it seems almost like we’re contradicting ourselves here...  

You mention the rational making the ”encoding” leaf optional, which seems reasonable to me, but what about mandating a default, do you have a sense for how many people weighed-in on that decision?  

PS: separately, can you look into configuring your mail agent to indent quotes in responses?

Kent // contributor