RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-weijing-netconf-interface-00.txt

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:abierman@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 11:29 AM
> To: Chen, Weijing
> Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-weijing-netconf-interface-00.txt
> 
> 
> Actually, the IETF spent about 2 years soliciting comments from
> network operators.  I doubt every detail got documented, but they
> are mostly captured in RFC 3535, especially section 3.  For
> example, the separation of config and state data is captured
> in section 3, requirement 2.

Interesting.  Do you know if any comments were solicited from the
organizations that employ the network operators?  In otherwords, can we
assume some level of implied requirements?  Was the group solicited
motivated towards one or more of the following high-level requirements?

 - faster?
 - cheaper?
 - "better"?

Many of the crazy CLI scenarios described previously are crazy *but they
work* in general.  Frankly I'm concerned we'll create something that is
none of the above.  The expense in using or migrating to something new
is significant -- the value of whatever we do has to exceed that
cost/complexity/delay.

Thanks.  I'll have a look at RFC 3535.

-Andrew


Andrew Hunkins
+1 (612) 204-3605
ahunkins@unimax.com


--
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/>