RE: Why are we doing netconf?

["Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

Maybe this is part of the discussion suggested by Dave Harrington about
'a strategic vision about converging aspects of the various NM protocols
and NM security solutions' discussion that needs to be conducted by the
management and security communities altogether. 

Dan


 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 4:16 PM
> To: Sharon Chisholm; netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Why are we doing netconf?
> 
> Sharon, 
> 
> > <Rainer>
> > *If* the primary motivation to include notifications is to replace 
> > syslog, I think a shared effort with the syslog community would be 
> > benefitial.
> > </Rainer>
> > 
> > That isn't our primary motivation. It is just that some people feel 
> > that some of the requirements can be met by this existing solution, 
> > which is why it comes up.
> 
> From following the list (but sometimes briefly), I have to 
> admit that I do not have a clear impression on what the 
> primary motivation is and why a separate event logging 
> protocol is needed. I think it would help immensely if there 
> would be description of what is intended and why syslog can 
> not do the job. That would also help focus the document on 
> these topics. Besides, it might be easy to modify syslog to 
> solve issues...
> 
> I am aware that there is a requirements/motivation 
> discussion. I think this discussion is useful for the reasons 
> outlined above.
> 
> Rainer
> 
> --
> 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/>