RE: netconf WG charter proposal

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

AD hat off

W.r.t.
> >Andy>   - Provides support for multi-device configuration transactions
> >Andy>     (with locking and rollback capability)
> >
> >So I probably mis-understood what the robust transaction model above
> >was. This probably indicates a need for clarification. Anyway, does
> >this item imply that locking and rollback capabilities are a required
> >feature? If yes, I applaud (and look forward for an xmlconf revision
> >that actually makes this mandatory).
> 
> These features are optional. Not all devices will be
> capable of supporting them.
> 
And so... We could still make them REQUIRED and those (few I hope) 
devices that cannot support then can then not claim compliance with
this new protocol. Is that so bad? It would motivate such device
vendors to re-evaluate if they want to add a bit of power
to their device, no?

Or are you telling me that there are MANY such devices out there 
(that we consider part of our target set of devices to be configured)?

Bert

--
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/>