Re: netconf WG charter proposal

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

Hi -

> From: "Harrington, David" <dbh@enterasys.com>
> To: "Andy Bierman" <abierman@cisco.com>
> Cc: <xmlconf@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 2:47 PM
> Subject: RE: netconf WG charter proposal
...
> I didn't ignore the distinction between a human and programmatic interface. The fact is,
> the CLI may be designed to be a human-interaction interface, but it has also been
> harnessed to be a programmatic interface using scripting. For the same reasons
> already cited, it appears to be the best current interface for programmatic
> configuration as well, even though it is not standardized.
...

Another aspect of this has shown up in repeated statements from operators
in face-to-face meetings and the IAB workshop that they really want the
human and automated interfaces to be the same.  Or have they changed
their view on this?

The other message I've heard several times is that using different
protocols for configuration and monitoring would be undesirable.
Did I just imagine these statements?

I'd love to hear from the operators regarding the desirability of distinct
protocols for machine-to-machine configuration, human-to-machine
interaction, and machine-to-machine monitoring.

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/>