[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: AD review for: draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-04.txt

Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

OK, looking forward to it.

WG chairs, is the proposed solution for the "SSH is mandatory"
for you and your WG?



This is fine. The WG agreed over a year ago on the mandatory mapping,
but never put the right words in the documents to support it. 

Bert




Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret@thingmagic.com]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 05:12
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); ted.goddard@icesoft.com
Cc: Netconf (E-mail)
Subject: Re: AD review for: draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-04.txt



Hi All,

A few comments on Bert's AD review:

At 9:19 PM +0200 7/29/05, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:


- I believe we discussed that netconf over ssh was going
to be mandatory to implement. But I cannot find a statement
about that. Neither in this doc, not in the protocol doc.


I think that the best way to handle this would be to put a statement in the base NETCONF protocol document with a normative reference to the NETCONF over SSH document, but I'm open to other choices. Thoughts?

Bert, I'll be submitting a new version later this week that should have the new boilerplate. I'll also address your other comments, and the comments that others have made about the need for IANA to register the "netconf" SSH subsystem name.

Margaret




--
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/>






--
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/>