RE: XMLCONF Proposal

["Putzolu, David" <david.putzolu@intel.com>]

Hi Margaret.

I have read the draft and believe this merits further
attention in IETF. Holding a BOF in SF would be a good
idea - but please get a proposed date in place asap.

A couple people have already questioned the need to
define yet another RPCoXML.  I looked at what was done 
and it seems pretty reasonable, but would like at least 
to see some justification for not reusing prior art.

Cheers,
David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw@windriver.com] 
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 7:14 AM
> To: ops-area@ietf.org; ops-nm@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; 
> nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
> Cc: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: XMLCONF Proposal
> 
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> We have a proposal available for a new configuration protocol
> that may be of interest to folks on these lists.  The proposal
> has been published an an I-D, and can be found at:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-enns-xmlconf-spec-00.txt
> 
> We believe that this proposal addresses many of the operator
> and vendor requirements for a configuration protocol that have
> been gathered and analyzed over the past couple of years.
> 
> We will be requesting a BOF to discuss this proposal in San
> Francisco, but before a BOF can be scheduled, we will need to
> demonstrate sufficient community interest in this proposal.
> 
> So, if you believe that this proposal warrants further work
> within the IETF, please send your feedback ASAP to
> xmlconf@ops.ietf.org.
> 
> Please DO NOT cross-post replies to all of the groups cc:ed
> on this message.
> 
> Thanks,
> Margaret

--
to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>