RE: netconf WG charter proposal

["Harrington, David" <dbh@enterasys.com>]

Title: RE: netconf WG charter proposal

Hi,

 

I suggest that netconf should not address these additional usages, but should consider them in its design so as to not preclude addressing them later by reusing the netconf protocol solution.

 

my $.02

dbh

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 3:45 PM
To: mrm
Cc: Allen, Keith; xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: netconf WG charter proposal

>> 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?

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/>