> The IESG statement is worded poorly at best. It appears to me to imply > "when picking between MIB and Netconf/YANG models, pick the latter".
This is how I read it, as well. > An abstract API should never need to get into such a level of detail to > require a particular implementation. If you're aiming for something > beyond that, IMO the IETF is the wrong place (e.g., a better place would > be POSIX). To this point, does it make sense to use a common implementation as an illustration of how an abstract API might be implemented? This is how I read the ENO API document: not as a specification for a particular API, but as a description of what such an API must cover, with the Linux/POSIX configuration interfaces used as an illustration. Kyle _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
