Subject: FYI: NETCONF minutes uploaded

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:54:09 -0700

Hi,

The minutes from the IETF 68 NETCONF WG meeting can be found on
the IETF WEB site:

http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/minutes/netconf.txt

Andy

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:51:25 -0400

Hi

I couple corrections/clarifications.

2.6 and 2.7 were separate agenda items and not directly part of the
Notification draft discussion.

For 2.6, there was consensus that this wasn't the right working group to
work on a Netconf Monitoring Schema but the group did not discuss the
document very long and I don't remember any specific objections to the
content of the document being raised.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:54 PM
To: Netconf (E-mail)
Subject: FYI: NETCONF minutes uploaded

Hi,

The minutes from the IETF 68 NETCONF WG meeting can be found on the IETF
WEB site:

Andy

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:43:28 -0700

> content of the document being raised.

There were several mailing list comments that questioned why we needed
particular monitoring data model objects defined at this time, by this WG.

Here is the 2.6 text:

-----
2.6) Monitoring Data Model

There are many objections to the session-specific state data that
is included in the draft, for retrieval with the <get> operation.
The group was in general agreement that data models should
only be included in the document if they are really needed for
interoperability.
------

I think this is consistent with your statement that this wasn't the right
WG.  My text is focusing on the contents of the Notifications draft.
That's what I meant by 'the document'.  I did not mean or say 'any document'.

There is still an open issue with the read-only 'last modified' timestamp
in the profile configuration data model.  A few people (besides me) think
it doesn't need to be there for interoperability.

Andy

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:20:21 -0400

Hi

Mailing list comments do not belong in meeting minutes unless someone
referred to them at the time. For correct minutes, I feel 2.6 should be
come 3.0 and 2.7 should become 4.0 and I think 2.6 (3.0) should be
modified to reflect the actual meeting discussion.

Sharon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 12:43 PM
To: Chisholm, Sharon (CAR:ZZ00)
Cc: Netconf (E-mail)
Subject: Re: NETCONF minutes uploaded

Sharon Chisholm wrote:
> For 2.6, there was consensus that this wasn't the right working group 
> to work on a Netconf Monitoring Schema but the group did not discuss 
> the document very long and I don't remember any specific objections to

> the content of the document being raised.
> 

There were several mailing list comments that questioned why we needed
particular monitoring data model objects defined at this time, by this
WG.

Here is the 2.6 text:

-----

There are many objections to the session-specific state data that is
included in the draft, for retrieval with the <get> operation.
The group was in general agreement that data models should only be
included in the document if they are really needed for interoperability.
------

I think this is consistent with your statement that this wasn't the
right WG.  My text is focusing on the contents of the Notifications
draft.
That's what I meant by 'the document'.  I did not mean or say 'any
document'.

There is still an open issue with the read-only 'last modified'
timestamp in the profile configuration data model.  A few people
(besides me) think it doesn't need to be there for interoperability.

Andy

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:58:02 -0700

> modified to reflect the actual meeting discussion.

2.6 refers to the open issue of the last modified timestamp
that is still in the 'profile', in the Notifications draft.

2.7 refers to where the new text for SSH transport support resides,
and putting it in this draft has not been ruled out.  There hasn't
been any decision made yet on that issue.

There were comments in the meeting about this issue.
I believe Martin mentioned that the last-modified timestamp was not needed,
and Simon mentioned that the 'getStreams' data model was not useful at all.

Btw, Section 2 is titled 'Notification Issues', not 'Notification Draft Issues',
since were reviewing the section numbering now.

Andy