RE: Is beep really what operators would want?

["Little, Kevin C (IP)" <kclittle@enterasys.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin C Miller [mailto:kevinm@andrew.cmu.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:59 PM
> To: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Is beep really what operators would want?
> 
> >   Specifically, I'm not sure
> > that anyone could use the protocol without some minimal set of tools
> > (I'm sure a perl module would be easy to write for helping with the
> > communication requirements, of one doesn't exist yet).
> 
> I agree that BEEP would seem to exclude the cut-n-paste method of
using
> xmlconf.
> 
> >   Maybe the
> > simple-to-use-over-telnet type protocol requirement is obsolete?
> 
> If xmlconf is merely complimentary to a "human" CLI, then I see no
> requirement for a simple-to-use-over-telnet interaction requirement.
> However, I would guess that if (because?) it's easier/cheaper/a better
> value to implement xmlconf, new products will start to lack the human
CLI.

I'd be fired if I attempted to bring out a new product without a CLI!

I barely accept the common wisdom that XML is human-readable; IMO,
it is human-decipherable at best. It is certainly not human-writeable in
the sense that a good CLI is.

      -k


--
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/>