Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

[as a contributor]


>     1) is the problem important for the NETCONF WG to solve?

I believe that it is important to enable publishers to send notifications directly from line cards.   This belief is based on my experience from when at Juniper dealing with very high-end firewalls with enormous log output.

I believe that the NETCONF WG is the appropriate WG for this work, having defined RFC 8639 (SN), RFC 8640 (NN), and RFC 8650 (RN).


>     2) is the draft a suitable basis for the work?

I have read the current version of the draft and find it to be a reasonable start.

Presuming the ability to use a transport outside of SN, as described by http-motif, is maintained, it may be useful if this draft could describe how to do that also.  That said, if all equipment having a multiplicity of publisher-agents will uses SN, then this isn’t needed.  [Note: the “https-notif” draft’s intention is to enable simple implementations, e.g., no multiplicity of publisher-agents.]




3) regarding Juergen’s questions:

  a) I am willing to substantially review the drafts.
  b) I am willing to contribute to the discussion of any issue.
  c) I do NOT plan to implement the technology defined.



Kent