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

Eric Rescorla <> Wed, 23 April 2008 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D73963A68FB; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E9C3A6868 for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.495
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VKxmdWS7vz8Z for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720193A6BE8 for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kilo.local (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CACB422E7B1; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:45:02 -0700
From: Eric Rescorla <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <004101c8a4df$d7bfe980$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <> <>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.5 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.1 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

At Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:39:13 +0200,
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> I congratulate the participants who worked on the charter on managing to 
> have the discussion and come to consensus on an approach. I think it's 
> up to Eric to demonstrate to the IESG that there's support in the 
> community for disagreeing with the consensus of the discussing participants.


Thanks for your comments.

I certainly agree that there is consensus on this approach among the
proponents of the various proposals. My concern, perhaps not clearly
stated, was that that consensus had not been validated with a wider
community, either in the BOF or in a more public forum. Based on the
discussion here, I think it's clear that in fact there is broad
consensus among the people who care.

I remain concerned that this is the wrong technical approach; it
appears to me to be unnecessary and overcomplicated. However, it's
clear that's a minority opinion, so I'll drop my objection to this


IETF mailing list