Re: Thoughts on NetConf Requirements

[Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>]

>>>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:31:05 -0700, Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com> said:

Andy> I don't think it's heavy-handed to try to keep the WG focused
Andy> on the charter.

Agreed.

I'll remind you that I was only responding originally to your
statement which read:

Andy> So what's so complex about reads? The authorization model?
Andy> IMO, the authorization model amounts to a set of tuples:
Andy> { user, operations-allowed, element-subtree }.
Andy> Read operations amount to 1 more bit in the operations-allowed field.

My original point was only that the above list was too short, in my
opinion (of course).

-- 
"In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than the soap,
 and much more difficult to find."  -- Terry Pratchett

--
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/>