Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)

Bernard Aboba <> Fri, 25 April 2008 00:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A6E33A6825; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F1233A6825 for <>; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.183
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.183 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.415, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id skQY5AvP6805 for <>; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB3D83A676A for <>; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU137-W50 ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:47:42 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU137-W50661F444A32A2094A4DF793DD0@phx.gbl>
X-Originating-IP: []
From: Bernard Aboba <>
To: <>
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:47:42 -0700
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2008 00:47:42.0922 (UTC) FILETIME=[F8673AA0:01C8A66D]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1094192559=="

I echo Tom Petch’s concern.  
Given the level of deployment success of new IETF management efforts
for the last 5-10 years, I’d suggest that we need both customer
“pull” as well as technical community “push” for such an effort
to succeed.  While there have been arguments made for the latter,
I don’t see enough evidence of customer (in particular, operator)
involvement to feel confident that the former has been addressed. 
David Harrington said:
“The people who believe that YANG is more expressive and better suited
for this poarticular purpose include contributors to the design of
SMIv2, MIB Doctors, members of the NMRG who helped develop the SMING
information and data modeling language,  contributors to the SMIng WG
which worked on developing a proposed SMIv3 to converge the SMIv2
standard and the SPPI data modeling language standard and the NMRG
SMING approach, and engineers who have multiple independent
implementations of running code for Netconf data modeling.”
Tom Petch said:
“Sounds magnificent but who are these people and where are they?
I do track the YANG and NGO mailing lists and what I see there worries me.  I
see a significant number of questions along the lines; of what does this mean,
how can this ever work, how can I do ... and the questions are all very
reasonable and need answers - which they mostly get, even if they are somewhat
too often along the lines of 'oh dear', or 'more work needed'.
But they are the sort of questions I, for all I have done with SMI, ASN.1 and
other languages, would not have thought to ask; they come from someone at the
sharp end writing code for today's boxes.  Yet these questions are almost all
coming from just one person with a specific market place, and if he can find so
many doubts and queries, how many more are there waiting to be discovered?
That one person - hi, Andy! - is doing a magnificent job but for a new language
to live up to its billing, we need half a dozen such people, from different
parts of O&M to find the holes; and I just do not see them, at least not on the
YANG and NGO mailing lists.
The answers, likewise, mostly come from the same three or so people; again, I am
concerned that there are not more, given the claims of yang.
This causes me to doubt that we, the IETF, really has the community of interest
to undertake such a challenging assignment.
Tom Petch”
IETF mailing list