Re: [Netconf] netconf call home connection type

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > If we have the rpc, it is less broken.  I would prefer to define the
> > rpc in SN now.  Since we decided to work out the details for
> > configured subscriptions now in SN, I don't think we can ignore this
> > issue.
>
> Agreed.  Without the "reason" identity, an operator could still know
> that certain call-home connections (e.g., to a server or port) are only
> for configured-subscriptions.  But, without an "activate-configured-
> subscription" RPC, there would be no way to start the flow of event
> notifications.  Can you please help raise the need for an RPC in your
> SN LC review?
>
>

It may be hard to separate implementation details from the standard details.

IMO configured subscription delivery connections could very well be 1 way
and the receiver may not be designed to send anything to the publisher
(like SNMP).

This is completely different than CallHome, where the purpose is to
establish
a NETCONF or RESTCONF session (neither of which allows ANY server-initiated
operations). So this "activate-configured-subscription" RPC is needed for
CallHome,
not really for all configured subscriptions.



>
> > The identity is less important imo.  And of course, the identity is of
> > no use until the "call-home-reason" data model has been defined...
>
> Yes, less important for the reason mentioned above.
>
>
> Kent // contributor
>
>

Andy



>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>