one more requirement

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Hi Juergen,

Thanks for starting this list.

I think we should start with the requirement
that we add just enough complexity to support
our charter of network configuration, and no more.

If netconf is to become some sort of replacement
for other NM protocols, then as Dave H. said,
we will do it with forethought and design,
not as a side-effect of the notification work.

In the meantime, our charter is network configuration,
so we need to limit the scope of our feature set accordingly.

It doesn't matter if proprietary netconf extensions exist to
do more than configuration. We have to prioritize our
work according to the WG charter.


Andy




--
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/>