Re: Goals for netconf - moving towards the charter description

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

Could we agree to say "ip-capable" instead of "ip-centric"?
Using "-centric" the way most (except Faye) have been using it
is too big a stretch.  Consider etymology, definition, and common
usage.  All would lead one to conclude that "ip-centric" is *not*
what is meant here.  "ip-capable" is.

Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "RJ Atkinson" <rja@extremenetworks.com>
To: "Faye Ly" <faye@pedestalnetworks.com>
Cc: "Margaret Wasserman" <mrw@windriver.com>; <xmlconf@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 4:54 AM
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/>



--
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/>