Re: comments on version 2 of protocol draft

[Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>]

>>>>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 12:47:16 -0500, Bobby Krupczak <rdk@krupczak.org> said:

Bobby> Maybe I am the only one that likes clear and understandable
Bobby> protocols and specs.

I suspect we'll need to agree to disagree, as our definitions of clear
and understandable are not the same.  Our definitions of usable are
not the same either, because in your environment and applications you
don't have a problem with increased bandwidth and computation.  Your
environments probably have fewer boxes than mine do, and have less
bandwidth constraints.

I'm more and more convinced daily that netconf will never be a generic
configuration protocol suitable for most environments.  It's targeting
itself at a small subset of device types, which is disappointing in my
mind.  I was really hoping it would be able to meet the criteria from
multiple, different camps.  That's my naivety showing through I guess.

-- 
"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/>