Re: netconf WG charter proposal

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

all unnerstood, but ...

>>>    - Suitable for IP-reachable network devices
>> hmmm, are we sneaking in non-internet devices here?  e.g., i
>> configure my 10kv power station and transmission system via ip?
> Not really. We are focusing on networking devices,
> but since we are independent of the data model,
> and if a toaster can connect to an IP network
> and implement the netconf protocol, then why prohibit this?

i would remove this loophole.  it will be serendipitous should it
happen.  but with this charter phrasing, a zealot could push it as
a chartered goal.  an analog of this happened in ipfix.

>> you lept right into xml as the solution here without previous
>> warning
> what should I write?

dunno.  maybe a clue nearer the front that xml is the chosen path

>> optimistic
> I'm rarely accused of that :-)  How about August or September,
> with the rest of the schedule pushed out to match.

don't care.  it was merely a comment.  not big penalties for time
slips in the ietf.  and it could help you focus within what has
been a very productive design team to date.  and it's bert's call
anyway.  we are all bozos on this bus.

randy


--
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/>