|
I will update the proto-writeup later today
Bert
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:00
AM
Subject: Re: [Netconf] New
draft-ietf-netconf-partial-lock-08.txt goes toAD andIETF Last Call
I would like to make progress on this issue and forward the
document to
IETF Last Call. My reading from the discussions on the list
supports the
chairs opinion about consensus, but also shows that at least
one strong
and articulated different opinion exists. This is not reflected
in the
current PROTO write-up, so I would like to ask Bert to mention
the
minority concerns in section (1e) of the write-up (How solid is the
WG
consensus behind this document?).
DBH and other - please feel
free to re-iterate your concerns as IETF LC
comments.
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netconf-bounces at ietf.org
>
[mailto:netconf-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Balazs Lengyel
> Sent:
Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:41 AM
> To: Andy Bierman
> Cc: netconf at ietf.org; 'Ron Bonica'
>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] New
> draft-ietf-netconf-partial-lock-08.txt
goes to AD andIETF Last Call
>
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
As I have stated before, I strongly object to changing the NETCONF
>
> database architecture without a complete re-charter and
>
development of
> > a NETCONF Architecture document first -- one that
does not ignore
> > access control.
> >
>
> I
agree with Andy, that introducing multiple candidate
> configs or a
partial-commit operation is out of scope for
> now, and requires
careful consideration and a recharter.
> Balazs
>
_______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing
list
> Netconf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing
list
Netconf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus
Database: 270.12.52/2152 - Release Date: 06/03/09
05:53:00
|
