RE: Thoughts on NetConf Requirements

["Hunkins, Andrew" <ahunkins@unimax.com>]

Totally agree.  But I was missing the connection to requirements.
Agaian, somebody must have a need somewhere.  Unfortunately, the project
of replacing entire protocol layers because it's more elagent or
correct, never seems to get funded.  I just wanted to tie it back there
so I know who we're helping.

-Andrew


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:30 PM
> To: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Thoughts on NetConf Requirements
> 
> 
> 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/>
> 

--
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/>