[netconf] Re: Default statements on udp-client-server groupings

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 8:43 AM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Alex, et al.
>
> The reasons are the followings:
> - When there is a default statement in the grouping and a user “uses” this
> grouping, the user is obligated to refine this default port with *another*
> valid port.
>
>
> I’m unsure what “user” means, but it’s worth clarifying that just the
> higher-level module’s writer/designer would “refine" the groupings.   That
> is, it’s not the NC/RC-client that must set a port value, so the imposition
> is low to them.
>
> Of course, the presumption is that the higher-level groupings are for a
> “service” that has an assigned port.   To promote *interoperability*,
> wouldn’t it be better for the port that UDP-notif uses to have a default
> value, in the same say that Syslog and SNMP-trap have a default port
> value?  What is the resistance to requesting for a port-allocation and
> using it here?   Even for private services, one might expect them to have a
> notion of a default port, right?
>
> That said, I am sympathetic to a comment Med made once about how there
> doesn’t *have* to be a default port to a service that is not considered
> “first contact”.   That is, since the NC/RC-server’s UDP-notif-client is
> first configured (e.g., via NC/RC), it’s not a first-contact situation.
> Still, see previous paragraph.
>
>
How is this any different than Call Home, which has default port
assignments?
The grouping should not have a default port, but the uses-stmt for the
udp-notif service should add one.




> Kent  // contributor
>


Andy


>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>