Re: Thoughts on NetConf Requirements

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

Hi -

> From: "Hunkins, Andrew" <ahunkins@unimax.com>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
> Cc: <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:24 PM
> Subject: RE: Thoughts on NetConf Requirements
...
> I've always taken a strict view of the OSI management areas, FCAPS:
> Fault, Configuration, Accounting, Performance and Security.  The xmlconf
> and netconf led me to believe that the group was going to tackle a
> common interface for Configuration.  Much needed!
...

Ironically, back when ISO and ITU-T were actively working on OSI
management, we found that the FCAPS distinction was not terribly
helpful in protocol design decisions, and that many objects and
attributes were of interest to multiple areas.  I think FCAPS helps
one think about product opportunities, and potential use cases for
bits of information, but am wary of using it to partition protocol or
object functions.

Randy



--
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/>