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

Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-05.txt to Proposed Standar d [I06-051127-0011]

To: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
Subject: Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-05.txt to Proposed Standar d [I06-051127-0011]
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:47:26 -0800
Authentication-results: imail.cisco.com; header.From=lear@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( message from cisco.com verified; );
Cc: "'Steve Moulton'" <moulton@snmp.com>, "Netconf (E-mail)" <netconf@ops.ietf.org>, Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>
Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=776; t=1142632120; x=1143064320; c=relaxed/simple; s=nebraska; h=Subject:From:Date:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version; d=cisco.com; i=lear@cisco.com; z=From:Eliot=20Lear=20<lear@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20Evaluation=3A=20draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-05.txt=20to=20Proposed=20 Standar=0A=20=20d=20[I06-051127-0011] |To:=22McDonald,=20Ira=22=20<imcdonald@sharplabs.com>; X=v=3Dmtcc.com=3B=20h=3D29zb58YzKM+1fe/6jf4Q0I6QdU0=3D; b=dKbpoRP5J3T0G3l4ts8+uTS3ZBbtYvrfTy5W6o7PxmMd5ffdL9p52ao/G19BCOJGFrfGNitC Eink4eBGwZ1QxbwzodGQhUFscRurM/2asibHSQKxMzFPqEse6ImJLwq8Y7VD/53EN3EgeDf1dOk OAYQ2CvKHNsUCa2x+Mlqb3pE=;
In-reply-to: <CFEE79A465B35C4385389BA5866BEDF00C7FB6@mailsrvnt02.enet.sharplabs.com>
References: <CFEE79A465B35C4385389BA5866BEDF00C7FB6@mailsrvnt02.enet.sharplabs.com>
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Macintosh/20051201)

Ira,
> If Netconf is not a _ubiquitous_ general replacement for SNMP
> and other legacy configuration protocols for ALL network
> elements, then it's not a critical system service - period.
>   
SNMP didn't start as a ubiquitous replacement for anything.  It's a
mistake to make this decision based on popularity.  The question in my
opinion is ONLY a matter of who can bind the port and what impact it can
have.  Now, arguably one could argue that if you get your process
initiation order correct, this isn't a problem.  On the other hand, if a
process can be killed, then the problem recurs.  This to me is the
technical issue.  It's not a political vanity.  If we were talking
about, oh, say, the "talk" or "finger" protocols, I'd feel differently...

Eliot

--
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/>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-05.txt to Proposed Standar d [I06-051127-0011]
  - From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>

References:
- RE: Evaluation: draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-05.txt to Proposed Standar d [I06-051127-0011]
  - From: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>

Prev by Date: Re: use of netconf to configure Unix systems
Next by Date: Re: use of netconf to configure Unix systems
Previous by thread: RE: Evaluation: draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-05.txt to Proposed Standar d [I06-051127-0011]
Next by thread: Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-05.txt to Proposed Standar d [I06-051127-0011]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread