Re: Question regarding the scope of the WG

[Jon Saperia <saperia@jdscons.com>]

> 
> I agree that the goals you stated, if taken at that level of detail, would
> be a daunting task for a simple draft.  However, I think that operators
> would, by and large, prefer to leave the "how" details to tools developers
> like yourself.  We're much more interest in the "what" than the "how".  So
> at the risk of seeming glib, let me address these in one-liners:

Bill, it seems like specification of things like SMTP in previous email
messages, etc are very much how. Can you clarify?
/jon
> 
>     > »·······configuration database
> 
> That's inside the machine, and we don't care how you do it.
> 
>     > »·······configuration generator
> 
> If you mean a tool which we (operators) use to create configurations,
> which are then loaded into boxes, it's imperative that such _not be
> necessary_.  If we need them, we can hack them together in perl.  If it's
> too complicated for us to hack together in perl, it's too complicated,
> period, and needs to be fixed.
> 
>     > »·······tool to push the config to the network
>     
> Unnecessary.  Serial cables, ftp, tftp, bootp, and scp all already exist.
> 
>     > »·······trend analysis tools 
> 
> Out of scope.
> 
>     > »·······billing collection
>     
> Shouldn't be different from any other kind of statistical collection.
> 
>     > »·······tools to evaluate network health 
>     
> Out of scope.
> 
> What we're really interested in here, I believe, is how operators need to
> be able to communicate with their equipment.  What we do with the data
> once we've got it is out of scope, and how you represent and handle the
> data internally to the box is out of scope.
> 
> 
>                                 -Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 

Thanks,
/jon
--

Jon Saperia		     saperia@jdscons.com
			     Phone: 617-744-1079
			     Fax:   617-249-0874
			     http://www.jdscons.com/