Same for me.
Regards, /gww
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Tom Petch
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 15:05
> To: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: few comments on the prot-06 draft -- positiveInteger/seconds
>
> same for me
> Tom Petch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Natale" <Bob.Natale@AppliedSNMP.com>
> To: <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 8:22 PM
> Subject: Re: few comments on the prot-06 draft -- positiveInteger/seconds
>
>
> > Since overall WG feedback was sought:
> >
> > I share Juergen's position on both questions -- positiveInteger and
> seconds.
> >
> > BobN
> >
> > ---- Original message ----
> > >Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 07:32:09 +0200
> > >From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>
> > >Subject: Re: few comments on the prot-06 draft
> > >To: Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>
> > >Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "Steven Berl (sberl)"
> > <sberl@cisco.com>, netconf <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> > >
> > >On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 09:10:54AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > >
> > >> I do not think there is consensus to make any change at this time.
> > >>
> > >> I wonder what the rest of the WG thinks?
> > >
> > >I think positiveInteger is what we should use and I like the idea
> > >to allow for a resolution in seconds.
> > >
> > >/js
> > >
> > >Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
> > ><http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725
>
>
> --
> 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/>