[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Separation of configuration and control - good or bad?

To: Larry Menten <lmenten@lucent.com>
Subject: Re: Separation of configuration and control - good or bad?
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 01:19:06 -0700
Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <3ECD251E.20607@lucent.com>
References: <3ECBCF6A.2090606@cisco.com> <3ECBDBE4.3070504@lucent.com> <3ECC9016.8000400@cisco.com> <3ECD251E.20607@lucent.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507

Larry Menten wrote:

I'm not asking for locking. I'm suggesting that we rework the approach so that locking
is less important.

If you can explain how you can make a change such that you don't need locking I'm all ears. IMHO some level of granular locking is desirable as an option.

Eliot

--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Separation of configuration and control - good or bad?
  - From: Larry Menten <lmenten@lucent.com>

References:
- Re: Separation of configuration and control - good or bad?
  - From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- Re: Separation of configuration and control - good or bad?
  - From: Larry Menten <lmenten@lucent.com>
- Re: Separation of configuration and control - good or bad?
  - From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- Re: Separation of configuration and control - good or bad?
  - From: Larry Menten <lmenten@lucent.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Explicit and unique naming of configuration target
Next by Date: RE: Explicit and unique naming of configuration target
Previous by thread: Re: Separation of configuration and control - good or bad?
Next by thread: Re: Separation of configuration and control - good or bad?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread