Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss Issues
"Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortel.com> Mon, 05 May 2008 12:09 UTC
Return-Path: <netconf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: netconf-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-netconf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05923A6B65; Mon, 5 May 2008 05:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D49F3A6C69 for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2008 05:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SJ1s5gjonPur for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2008 05:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zrtps0kp.us.nortel.com (zrtps0kp.nortel.com [47.140.192.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D35D3A6BEE for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2008 05:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com (zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com [47.129.230.99]) by zrtps0kp.us.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m45C6UO23393; Mon, 5 May 2008 12:06:30 GMT
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 08:06:28 -0400
Message-ID: <713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B4145E07E1@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <002101c8a955$4e0565b0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss Issues
Thread-Index: AcimybQVJEZ5iqdXTweyEournL26jgABBQJgAfaRXuA=
References: <713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B41435D6BF@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com><713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B4143A2275@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com><4811C0B5.7010907@cisco.com> <20080425114407.GC19025@elstar.local> <002101c8a955$4e0565b0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com>
From: Sharon Chisholm <schishol@nortel.com>
To: David B Harrington <dbharrington@comcast.net>, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: netconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss Issues
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: netconf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: netconf-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Just to close this off. It seems we are converging on not adding the ISO reference but just the RFC. (Note the RFC references the ISO specification and attempts to remove some ambiguities). Just to clarify what people want to do 1) Keep both references 2) Just have a reference to RFC3339 3) Just have a reference to RFC3339 section 4.4 and appendix A 4) Just have a reference to RFC3339 section 4.4 5) Just have a reference to RFC339 appendix A Sharon -----Original Message----- From: netconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David B Harrington Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:28 PM To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de; 'Eliot Lear' Cc: netconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss Issues I believe we should follow RFC3339 section 4.4 David Harrington dbharrington@comcast.net ietfdbh@comcast.net dharrington@huawei.com > -----Original Message----- > From: netconf-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 7:44 AM > TFrom netconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon May 5 05:09:40 2008 Return-Path: <netconf-bounces@ietf.org> X-Original-To: netconf-archive@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-netconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05923A6B65; Mon, 5 May 2008 05:09:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D49F3A6C69 for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2008 05:09:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SJ1s5gjonPur for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2008 05:09:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zrtps0kp.us.nortel.com (zrtps0kp.nortel.com [47.140.192.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D35D3A6BEE for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2008 05:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com (zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com [47.129.230.99]) by zrtps0kp.us.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m45C6UO23393; Mon, 5 May 2008 12:06:30 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 08:06:28 -0400 Message-ID: <713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B4145E07E1@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> In-Reply-To: <002101c8a955$4e0565b0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss Issues Thread-Index: AcimybQVJEZ5iqdXTweyEournL26jgABBQJgAfaRXuA= References: <713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B41435D6BF@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com><713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B4143A2275@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com><4811C0B5.7010907@cisco.com> <20080425114407.GC19025@elstar.local> <002101c8a955$4e0565b0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> From: "Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortel.com> To: "David B Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net>, <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "Eliot Lear" <lear@cisco.com> Cc: netconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss Issues X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: netconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: netconf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Just to close this off. It seems we are converging on not adding the ISO reference but just the RFC. (Note the RFC references the ISO specification and attempts to remove some ambiguities). Just to clarify what people want to do 1) Keep both references 2) Just have a reference to RFC3339 3) Just have a reference to RFC3339 section 4.4 and appendix A 4) Just have a reference to RFC3339 section 4.4 5) Just have a reference to RFC339 appendix A Sharon -----Original Message----- From: netconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David B Harrington Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:28 PM To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de; 'Eliot Lear' Cc: netconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss Issues I believe we should follow RFC3339 section 4.4 David Harrington dbharrington@comcast.net ietfdbh@comcast.net dharrington@huawei.com > -----Original Message----- > From: netconf-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 7:44 o: Eliot Lear > Cc: netconf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss > Issues > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 01:29:57PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: > > Hi Sharon, > > > > This comment is largely bureaucratic: > > > > > Proposed Edits > > > -------------- > > > > > > A. In section 2.1.1, for both instances and in section > 2.2.1 Replace > > > This parameter is of type dateTime. > > > With > > > This parameter is of type dateTime and compliant to > [RFC3339] and > > > [ISO.8601.1988]. > > > > > > > RFC 3339 specifically uses a subset of ISO.8601.1988. As this > > discussion illustrates it is possible to construct times that are > > compliant with the latter and non-compliant with the > former. I believe > > that ISO.8601.1988 is a superset of RFC 3339. If you wish > compliance > > with "both", my recommendation would be to specify only > ISO.8601.1988. > > This would meet Juergen's requirement of being able to specify an > > unqualified timezone. > > > > ALTERNATIVELY, you could require times to be in > ISO.8601.1988 format, as > > specified in Appendix A of RFC 3339. > > > > Pointing at two standards covering the precise same > specification is > > just asking for a poke in the eye. > > Good bureaucratic comment. Reading section 4.4 or RFC 3339, I should > probably shut up and be fine with requiring a timezone to be known by > a conforming device and then we can perhaps go with the RFC 3339 > subset. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf > _______________________________________________ Netconf mailing list Netconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf _______________________________________________ Netconf mailing list Netconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf AM > To: Eliot Lear > Cc: netconf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss > Issues > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 01:29:57PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: > > Hi Sharon, > > > > This comment is largely bureaucratic: > > > > > Proposed Edits > > > -------------- > > > > > > A. In section 2.1.1, for both instances and in section > 2.2.1 Replace > > > This parameter is of type dateTime. > > > With > > > This parameter is of type dateTime and compliant to > [RFC3339] and > > > [ISO.8601.1988]. > > > > > > > RFC 3339 specifically uses a subset of ISO.8601.1988. As this > > discussion illustrates it is possible to construct times that are > > compliant with the latter and non-compliant with the > former. I believe > > that ISO.8601.1988 is a superset of RFC 3339. If you wish > compliance > > with "both", my recommendation would be to specify only > ISO.8601.1988. > > This would meet Juergen's requirement of being able to specify an > > unqualified timezone. > > > > ALTERNATIVELY, you could require times to be in > ISO.8601.1988 format, as > > specified in Appendix A of RFC 3339. > > > > Pointing at two standards covering the precise same > specification is > > just asking for a poke in the eye. > > Good bureaucratic comment. Reading section 4.4 or RFC 3339, I should > probably shut up and be fine with requiring a timezone to be known by > a conforming device and then we can perhaps go with the RFC 3339 > subset. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf > _______________________________________________ Netconf mailing list Netconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf _______________________________________________ Netconf mailing list Netconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
- [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Resolv… Sharon Chisholm
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… David B Harrington
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… David B Harrington
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Sharon Chisholm
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Phil Shafer
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Per Hedeland
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Sharon Chisholm
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Sharon Chisholm
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Bert Wijnen - IETF
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Bert Wijnen - IETF
- [Netconf] Quick WG Last Call on new draft update … Bert Wijnen - IETF
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Sharon Chisholm
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… David B Harrington
- [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification content David B Harrington
- [Netconf] Issue X: replaying replay David B Harrington
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: replaying replay Bert Wijnen - IETF
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… Bert Wijnen - IETF
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… David B Harrington
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: replaying replay David B Harrington
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: replaying replay Sharon Chisholm
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… Sharon Chisholm
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… David B Harrington
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… Sharon Chisholm
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… David B Harrington
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Sharon Chisholm
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… Sharon Chisholm
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… David B Harrington
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… Sharon Chisholm
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Sharon Chisholm
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… David B Harrington
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… Sharon Chisholm
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… David B Harrington
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Bert Wijnen - IETF
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… Bert Wijnen - IETF
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… Natale, Bob
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… tom.petch
- Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to Re… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Netconf] Issue X: access to notification con… Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Muenich)