RE: Is beep really what operators would want?

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

Aren't you guys saying the same thing?  Going forward, assuming netconf
is there, won't you choose to implement a CLI or any other human
interface on top of netconf?  There are a lot of tracing, logging,
security reasons to bottleneck all the interaction.

So CLI or not becomes either "irrelevant" or "part of the plan",
depending on your view.  How does this change the requirements for
netconf?

-Andrew


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Little, Kevin C (IP) [mailto:kclittle@enterasys.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 11:09 AM
> To: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Is beep really what operators would want?
> 
> Point taken. But at the low end you'd never expose XML to the user
> anyway, be it inside BEEP or something else. The interface is going to
> be a browser form, not a multi-line textual interface of any kind.
> 
> My point is this: Yes, using BEEP interactively is obviously
> impractical, given the need for a total byte count in the 
> frame header.
> But I don't buy the implicit assumption that any human operator would
> want to use an XML-based *RPC* "by hand" in the first place,
> screen-scraping notwithstanding. 
> 
> 

--
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/>