Probably a good idea to stop using the "IP-centric"
terminology. The definition that a device is IP-centric
== "it contains an IP stack" is like saying
automobiles a "tire-centric" because they have tires.
(picking another component and putting the suffix -centric
on it leads to the same argument.)
I think it is better to say that the device must be
reachable via IP for purposes of configuration management.
Bryan
-----Original Message-----
From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja@extremenetworks.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 7:54 AM
To: Faye Ly
Cc: Margaret Wasserman; xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Goals for netconf - moving towards the charter description
On Thursday, Mar 27, 2003, at 20:56 America/Montreal, Faye Ly wrote:
> As I kept getting emails
> stating XMLConf is for IP centric device only which is a bit
> frustrating
> for me.
"IP-centric" == has an IP stack, as was stated on-list several days
back.
For that definition, the XMLconf protocol *IS* only for IP-centric devices. If there is no IP stack on the device, there is no way to move the configuration blob on/off the device -- Quod Est
Demonstratum.
And nothing Margaret has said has changed that -- for example mrw has NOT proposed an XMLconf spec that can work absent an IP stack.
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/>