RE: NETCONF modelled in UML

[Nathan Sowatskey <nsowatsk@cisco.com>]

Because it is focused on the wire format. You don't need to do that I
feel. It is the operations that are important, wire encodings for XML
RPC are already well defined. You don't need to define another one.

Regards

Nathan

On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 17:39, David Harrington wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Sowatskey
> > The focus on the wire format is where I feel the 
> > specification is weakest.  
> > 
> I'm having a bit of trouble parsing this sentence unambiguously. Are you
> saying the specification is weak BECAUSE it is focused on the wire format
> rather than the operations, or are you saying the focus on the wire format
> is too weak?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave Harrington
> dbharrington@comcast.net
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>
-- 
Nathan Sowatskey - Technical Leader, NMTG CTO Engineering - Desk
+44-208-824-4259/+1-408-527-2595 - Mobile +44-7740-449794 - AIM id NathanCisco -
nsowatsk@cisco.com


--
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/>