RE: Goals for netconf - moving towards the charter description

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 11:55 AM 3/24/2003 -0800, Faye Ly wrote:
>Ran,
>
>It is based on the existing netconf protocol proposal where three
>channels are proposed: configuration, monitoring and fault(event).  I
>agree with you NE already has many management paths but now we are
>adding three more for IP user data configuration.  Doesn't sound
>justifiable especially if you are managing the IP user traffic device
>over WAN link.

This is not correct.
There are 3 channels called management, operation, and notification.
There are not 3 additional channels. The configuration data is moved
on the operation channel.  See section 2.4 in the draft.


>-faye

Andy



>-----Original Message-----
>From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja@extremenetworks.com] 
>Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 10:55 AM
>To: Faye Ly
>Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Goals for netconf - moving towards the charter description
>
>
>On Monday, Mar 24, 2003, at 13:11 America/Montreal, Faye Ly wrote:
>> it becomes
>> quite expensive to have three management channels supporting IP only
>> configuration data?
>
>I'm not sure where the number "three" comes from.
>
>I'm quite sure that there will always be many different
>management channels for many kinds of devices.  In the
>event some vendor added support for the proposal on the
>table, I seriously doubt that the vendor would remove
>support for any existing management channels to their
>equipment.  So I don't think we're getting rid of anything
>with this proposal on the table.
>
>Maybe I'm confused.
>
>Ran
>
>
>--
>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/> 


--
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/>