IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] operational state (WAS: New WGLC for a proposed new WG Charter ...)

"Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> Fri, 31 August 2012 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52DBA21F861F for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 07:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.386
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.386 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.213, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CLBacN+W4QBD for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 07:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1342]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EC9721F8613 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 07:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ayeaye.ripe.net ([193.0.23.5]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <bertietf@bwijnen.net>) id 1T7SEl-0003x8-0a; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:30:19 +0200
Received: from dog.ripe.net ([193.0.1.217] helo=guest156.guestnet.ripe.net) by ayeaye.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <bertietf@bwijnen.net>) id 1T7SEk-0003XV-SZ; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:30:18 +0200
Message-ID: <5040CA7A.40704@bwijnen.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:30:18 +0200
From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
References: <502D7052.2070302@bwijnen.net> <m28vddyjn1.fsf@nic.cz> <00fb01cd7f7a$2241fce0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <20120821.110614.245770058077084953.mbj@tail-f.com> <011f01cd7f86$329b5bc0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <20120826212304.GA7642@elstar.local> <00ec01cd8534$27a794a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <m2ipc26oyj.fsf@nic.cz> <000401cd876b$0e7aed40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <m2vcfz5euj.fsf@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <m2vcfz5euj.fsf@nic.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Anti-Virus: Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Linux Mail Server 5.6.48/RELEASE, bases: 20120425 #7816575, check: 20120831 clean
X-RIPE-Spam-Level: --
X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -2.9 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000]
X-RIPE-Signature: 86ab03e524994f79ca2c75a176445dd4f12df0069ddb2c0885c37672485c48ff
Cc: netconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Netconf] operational state (WAS: New WGLC for a proposed new WG Charter ...)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:30:23 -0000

Exactly

On 8/31/12 4:13 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> >
>> >I have always read RFC3535 as wanting
>> >- how to get a new box from the manufacturer operational
>> >- how to get a failing box working again by a variety of means
>> >and the netmod/conf view of configuration has focussed on the first
>> >which, while
>> >important, is not the whole story; and now we are starting to look at
>> >the whole story.
>> >Well, except that we are not, because it has been ruled out of scope pro
>> >tem:-(
> Do you mean it has been ruled out of scope because Bert didn't accept my
> fourth charter item? It is not how I see it - in fact, I believe there
> is now a general consensus that the "whole story" has to be addressed.
> The only problem is that nobody has proposed anything concrete so far,
> and Bert rightly demanded that such proposal(s) be first submitted as
> individual drafts.
>
> Lada
>

Exactly!

Bert

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status