RE: Where do we go from here?

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

> On Thursday, August 8, 2002, at 07:59 , Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > See you claim "more or less opaque" and so it does not sound like
> > it has indeed anything to do with XML config. The BOF was to exploire
> > possible uses/needs of XML in the area of Config Management.
> >
> > So as long as you do this in the context of "XML", then in my view
> > my question is valid.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be saying that the topic
> I noted, which was a (small) part of the XMLconf BOF, is being discussed
> on the wrong mailing list since it doesn't necessarily involve XML.
> Correct understanding ?
> 
Nope... the mailing list is one of Margaret (or of this group of people)
It is not a formal IETF WG mailing list, so as AD I have no say what topics
you discuss. That is up to list owner (Margaret?).

I was trying to explain that the BOF was NOT to try and charter a WG
It was to explore what kind of XML uses in config managent exist and
what benefits it may have for operators in thsi space.

So a "next step" out of this BOF does not seem to be a WG or such
that discusses the topic of sending blobs over SSHv2

> If yes, on which list can those of us who were at the "XMLconf" (sic)
> BOF discuss the issue of moving config blobs (not necessarily XML)
> to/from equipment via the SSHv2 mechanism currently avalable in
> deployed equipment from some vendors ?
> 
You can discuss it on this list if you like.

> > If a side-result of the BOF is that operators want/need some std
> > mechanism to send config data from NOC to devices and vice versa,
> > then that is maybe something that needs attention. Not sure it
> > should be see in the context of or as a result of the XMLconfig
> > BOF.
> 
> If you can clarify which mailing list you think that topic belongs on,
> then maybe interested parties can move to that list from this one.
> Right now I'm hearing from you that such discussion is out of scope
> for this mailing list, which is OK if there is someplace more appropriate
> to take that conversation.  I am a bit confused about which other list
> is appropriate however.
> 
Again, it can be discussed on this list as far as I am concerned.
ops-nm@ops.ietf.org is another list where it can be discussed.

What I am trying to say is that it is not a "next step" out of the
XMLconf BOF. If people believe that (maybe by accident or as a side-effect)
they found a topic that is worth of building support for a WG (i.e.
writeup some draft, get some discussion) etc. then that is fine, but
it is a separate path to form a WG for that, not a logical next step
out of XMLconf BOF.

I guess we're making more of a point of this than is needed.
If we had stepped on say "it would be nice to have a trouble ticket
application" then work on taht would also not have been a logical
next step of the XMLconf BOF.

Hope it helps, and if it is OK with Margareth, then you can discuss
the topic as long as is needed.

Bert
> Thanks,
> 
> Ran
> rja@extremenetworks.com
> 

--
to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>