RE: NetConf should fully exploit BEEP's rich features

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Eliot answers:
> 
> Eamon O'Tuathail wrote:
> > Draft-ietf-netconf-prot-00 in "Section 2: Transport Protocol Requirements"
> > uses the term "transport" - why?
> > Is the binding beneath NetConf merely providing a service of transporting of
> > octets, or more? It is obviously providing extra services such as  message
> > framing, connection setup semantics, authentication, error handling, etc.,
> > hence it should be called an application protocol.  
> > 
> > Proposal: Change this section's title to: "Section 2: Application Protocol
> > Requirements", and where ever references are made to "transport protocol"
> > elsewhere in the documents, change these to "application protocol". 
> 
> I agree with this change, and there's every indication based on a note 
> from the RFC Editor earlier in the year to the IETF that he would not 
> let the document through without this change (the word "transport" is 
> one of his nits).
> 
A few remarks:
- can you send (or point me to) the RFC-Editor note about that?
- pls realize that we talk about "transport" in our WG charter as well.
- Maybe it should be: Application Requirements on the Transport Protocol

In any event, the doc talks a lot about pure thansport issues, does it not?

Bert

--
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/>