RE: netconf WG charter proposal

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 03:45 PM 4/11/2003 -0400, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> We would prefer to use one protocol for both configuration and monitoring
>>> both to limit the number of interfaces we have to support and to eliminate
>>> the problems that crop up with trying to use multiple protocols to manage
>>> one box.
>> I would suggest debug in addition to config and monitoring
>> be a first class consideration.
>
>andy, if we are going to cater to such mission creep, it's probably
>appropriate move the millstones one or two years later in the charter.
>or maybe separate xmlconf and xml-b-arc into two separate efforts?

I think debug commands are clearly out of scope since
that's part of the data model (unless we're talking about
debugging the netconf protocol, which I doubt.).

I don't think 'show' commands are out of scope, i.e., <get-state>
in the XMLCONF draft.  Until somebody explains to me why the
<get-state> operation is fundamentally more complex and different
than the <get-config> operation, this seems like reasonable
functionality to have in v1.0.  I'm not interested in complaints
about bandwidth, e.g., someone wants to pull a million counter values
an hour over a 9600 baud serial line -- that's nonsense. But
checking interface status and maybe some other state variables
before provisioning a service on that interface is an important
feature.


>randy

Andy




>--
>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/> 


--
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/>