RE: Is beep really what operators would want?

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hunkins, Andrew [mailto:ahunkins@unimax.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 2:50 PM
> To: Little, Kevin C (IP); kevinm@andrew.cmu.edu
> Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Is beep really what operators would want?
> 
> 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

I'm just arguing that ease of interactive use should not be allowed to
slip in, camel-nose-like, to the netconf requirements. Bad camel, bad,
bad! :)

     -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/>