RE: netconf WG charter proposal - RPC

["Faye Ly" <faye@pedestalnetworks.com>]

Andy,

Great work!

Please see my comments proceeded by <FL>:

   - Provides a clear separation of configuration data
     from non-configuration data

<FL> Is this really necessary from a configuration protocol stand point?
Shouldn't it be more accurate to say "Provides a clear way to
differentiate between configuration data and non-configuration data"?  
 
   - Has a robust transaction model, based on remote procedure 
     calls (RPC)

<FL> Given so many discussion over this mailing list regarding RPC,
jumping right into RPC may not be a good idea.  Or at least certain
explanation should be provided to the rational behind choosing RPC.  How
does 'robust transaction model' mandate RPC, for example? 

Thanks.

-faye
   

--
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/>