Re: [NGO] NETCONF-related sessions at IETF 70

Phil,
  As an implementor, I can think of one obstacle I face with movement of MIBs from
use with SNMP to Netconf protocol:
-- Separation of configuration and state data.
-- Non-definition of a state datastore.
-- Difficulty in converting existing MIB stata data into Netconf state data. 

  My 2 cents.
Kalahasti

--- Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> wrote:

> "Sharon Chisholm" writes:
> >Either that or for more detailed discussion of the items in the updated
> >NETCONF charter.
> 
> Another thought is to come up with a list of the five biggest
> impediments to NETCONF's complete domination of the configuration
> space.  Do we know the answers to questions like:
> 
> - Why aren't/won't device folks shipping netconf implementations?
> - Why aren't/won't application writers moving to NETCONF?
> - Why isn't NETCONF becoming the answer to configuration problems?
> - What's stopping it?
> - Where's the chicken?
> - What's the egg?
> - What's the key to moving forward from here?
> - Where should we be concentrating our (precious and few) resources?
> - Will any of the new charter items be on this list?
> 
> Thanks,
>  Phil
> 
> --
> 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/>
> 

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. 
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
NGO@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo