Re: Is beep really what operators would want?

[Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>]

>>>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:09:08 -0400, "Little, Kevin C (IP)" <kclittle@enterasys.com> said:

Kevin> But I don't buy the implicit assumption that any human operator
Kevin> would want to use an XML-based *RPC* "by hand" in the first
Kevin> place, screen-scraping notwithstanding.

The point is that in the past I heard that whatever came about, yes
they did.  They didn't say XML, but they did say ASCII and cut-n-paste
and a whole bunch of other similar terms.  Think SMTP as a good
example.  You would rarely want to telnet directly to a sendmail port
and send mail, but I have before.  99% of the time you wouldn't do
this.  The operators made explicit statements saying they wanted to be
able to do similar things with network management "just in case" their
fancy tools broke.  With xmlconf over BEEP, I'm less convinced it's
meeting their previously stated goals, but as I said I suspect the
goals have bent a bit more toward what the protocol designers could deliver.

-- 
"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/>