On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Which one is the "Of course not" ?
[Alia] The idea that it is somehow pre-decided that configuration via Netconf or a different protocol will be required. > Thx, > R. > > PS. Remote participation in I2RS was just great. Pity that only Ed's > slides were posted timely before the meeting. [Alia] I'm glad that the remote participation went well. I was a bit concerned since we had no jabber comments during the discussions. We'll do better on slides availability next time. I did send out the functional analysis as email to the list well in advance to try and kickstart the conversation. > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: >> Of course not >> >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Ahhh so you are stating that to provision services on the network in >>> vendor neutral way I will not be able to use I2RS by design ? >>> >>> Is this already agreed point that NETCONF (or any other form of >>> configuration) will be required anyway in addition to I2RS for any >>> complete service provisioning ? >>> >>> Thx, >>> R. _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
