RE: netconf WG charter proposal

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

</ad-hat>

> If I understand well what you are saying, separation between the
> configuration and non-configuration data is something that needs
> to be realized both at the level of the retrieval mechanisms in
> the protocol, as well as in the data model. I suggest that the
> later be specifically added to the 'requirements for standard
> data models in order to fully support the Netconf protocol' in
> the netconf charter proposal.

something keeps bothering me here.  i am not sure i can fully put
my finger on it.  but it's something like worrying that we are
trying to overly describe what we *don't* do.  can we just talk
about configuration, and not get into characterizing what other
types of data there might be?

or are we seriously considering that the wg should also cover
setting and retrieval of other data, e.g., state data such as
interface counters etc.?

or maybe my discomfort is due to lack of clue.

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/>