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

"Randy Presuhn" <> Wed, 23 April 2008 02:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D91BA3A6E42; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4849A3A6D9E for <>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.227
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.227 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MmQCu-TEWeRd for <>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 645353A6FB9 for <>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=dvuQCbSmXK2ruGhCgx9+1hzL0wTTP3hVXzW6VEH4he2Yl7Z0N62riBitPIuKnNvm; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=oemcomputer) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1JoUXM-0001O4-10 for; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:16:44 -0400
Message-ID: <004101c8a4df$d7bfe980$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: "Randy Presuhn" <>
To: <>
References: <><> <>
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:17:47 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d8885d2a9c731cc89117d0a42e45ade481da14caacb1b3fbaf4f350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
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

Hi -

Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology
choices at the CANMOD BOF.  Our original proposal for consensus
hums included getting a of sense of preferences among the various
proposals.  We were told we could *not* ask these questions, for fear
of upsetting Eric Rescorla.  (It's unclear to me why his perspectives
on configuration management information models should be subject to
special consideration, while the folk who have been doing
active work and real products in this area over the last two decades
are largely ignored.) The people from the various design teams put a great
deal of time and energy into understanding each others' proposals and
the tradeoffs.  The standardazition of a modeling environment for
NECONF should have been completed literally five years ago.  The
notion that further delay is desirable is simply silly.

That said, I do agree with the others regarding the charter proposal.
While it's probably not exactly what anyone wanted, it does represent
something just about everyone who is actually doing work in this
area could not just live with, but actually support.


IETF mailing list