Re: Ever onward

[Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>]

>>>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:07:43 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> said:

Wes> Any and all transports could pick a netconf specific port to use.
Wes> It was simply decided that this wouldn't be done (except, I
Wes> guess, for BEEP).  But its not BEEP that matters.  It's the
Wes> different port, and there is nothing wrong with attaching the
Wes> other protocols to other ports too.  The authors just didn't want
Wes> to do it.

Juergen> Perhaps this needs to be revisited. Using a new port number,
Juergen> at least for the SSH mapping, makes really sense to me. It
Juergen> also avoids this "invocation of NETCONF as an SSH subsystem
Juergen> called "netconf" language in the mapping document which never
Juergen> really made me happy.

It was discussed multiple times at the last few meetings, but then
again it was never discussed on email (the method of record it so
happens).  Maybe you and I will be the only ones who speak up here and
it'll work ;-)


-- 
"In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than the soap,
 and much more difficult to find."  -- Terry Pratchett

--
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/>