Re: [Netconf] configuration models status and timeline

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 03:57:11PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
> 
> I do not recommend holding off publishing these documents for this.
> The folks asking for this said that, if IETF doesn't put something
> into the standard model, they would augment in what they need. 
> That said, I do think that we should perhaps switch to using an 
> enumeration or an identity so that such extensions can be mixed in
> easily in the future.  The only counterpoint might be that such 
> would disable the ability to do aliveness checks at multiple 
> protocol layers simultaneously, though I don't know if that would
> ever be desired or even, perhaps, not recommended.
>

Since liveness at layer N likely implies liveness at layers < N, one
think liveness test is good enough. One thing you may watch out for
are keep-alive parameters. I would not be surprised if the amount of
control an application has over the parameters varies widely. (But
perhaps that is then a matter of deviations.)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>