Re: text format of configurations

["Joel M. Halpern" <joel@longsys.com>]

There are two problems here that need to be recognized.  Before I state 
them, let me note that I agree with the goal.

1) This implies standardizing the command sequence (human readable 
commands) for controlling boxes.  User interface has generally been a space 
that the IETF stayed out of.
2) If there are new features, there is no way that you can expect multiple 
vendors to create the exact same syntax for controlling these 
features.  This implies that even if everyone buys into the goal of 
uniformity, it will not be perfectly achieved.
2') vendors will often claim that their command differences are due to the 
technical differentiation between products.  This will occasionally be 
accurate, and usually be an excuse to do things their own way.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 03:03 PM 6/25/01 -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>     > re: 03 & 04. strong echo of Adi's statement. if the vendor only 
> supplied
>     > compiled configurations, they should be required to decompile when 
> speaking
>     > the 'Infrastructure Management Protocol'
>
>I think is is one area where operators and vendors may run into a
>sticking-point...  Jon and I talked about it at some length.  It's _really
>important_ to operators that we have a uniform configuration syntax
>between devices, so that we don't have to train technicians on several
>different kinds of syntax.
>
>This obviously benefits competitive vendors, and is a potential problem
>for incumbent vendors, if the incumbent vendors aren't competitive.  If
>the syntax for a new device is the same as that which our techs are used
>to, we can deploy it without the cost of retraining, which means we're
>more likely to buy it.
>
>                                 -Bill
>