Re: Comments on Application Mapping I-Ds

[Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>]

> General comments below, I think we agreed at the meeting that since 
> Margaret was not in the room (always a good method to decide things) 
> and since it probably didn't matter too much, we'd go with her 
> organization.

I guess I'll have to miss more meetings, as I am apparently more 
persuasive when I'm not present... :-)

> And so this means the following for BEEP:
>
> >  1) General Comments
> >   - Titles should be consistent; every one is a different style.
> >     We need to decide which style is best:
> >      - BEEP Application Protocol Mapping for NETCONF
> >      - NETCONF Over SOAP
> >      - Using the NETCONF Configuration Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)
>
>
> Title - Using the NETCONF Configuration Protocol over BEEP

Unfortunately, we have to expand the acronyms, so I think we end up with:

Using NETCONF over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)

Do you think we have to expand NETCONF?  Or that we can get away with 
claiming that NETCONF _is_ the fully-expanded name of the protocol?

Margaret

--
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/>