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

Eric Rescorla <> Tue, 22 April 2008 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E2513A6EA9; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B63583A6EA7; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:10:26 -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 119Xt8YkbonR; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7D883A6E4A; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 303175081A; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:14:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:14:01 -0700
From: Eric Rescorla <>
To: David Partain <>
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/21.3 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 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:00:53 +0200,
David Partain wrote:
> Greetings,
> On Tuesday 22 April 2008 18.10.10 Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > I object to the formation of this WG with this charter.
> For those who haven't been involved in the discussions to date, Eric has 
> objected to this work from the very beginning, as far  back as the first 
> attempt to get a BOF and has continued to object since that time.  As such, 
> I'm not surprised that he objects now.

Of course, since the issues I was concerned about from the very
beginning remain.

> > While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest
> > in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical
> > direction. 
> Not surprisingly, I disagree.

Well, it's not really like this is a matter of opinion, since
the minutes are pretty clear that no consensus calls on the
choice of technology were taken, only that some work
in this area should move forward:

> The O&M community in the IETF has been talking about this specific topic for a 
> long time, both in official and unofficial settings.  We've had many hours of 
> meetings where people from all various viewpoints have had hashed out their 
> differences.  This all culminated during the last IETF in a rather strong 
> sense of consensus amongst those most interested in this work that it's time 
> to stop talking and move forward, and that YANG was the best way to do that.  
> No, not everyone agreed, but we DO have rough consensus in the O&M community 
> and with the APPS area people who were involved that this was a reasonable 
> approach forward.
> So, what about this consensus thing?
> Sometimes ADs have to make a call, and my take is that Dan & Ron did so.  They 
> asked people representing ALL of the proposals to work on a proposal for a 
> charter.  We spent a great many cycles doing exactly that.  All of the 
> proposals that you saw presented at the CANMOD BOF were very active in the 
> charter proposal discussions and the result is the consensus of all of those 
> people.  No one got exactly what they wanted, but I think everyone felt is 
> was a reasonable way forward.  So, we have consensus amongst the various 
> proposals' authors.

The sum of all this verbiage is that, precisely as I said, there
wasn't consensus at the BOF, but that there was some set of rump
meetings where this compromise was hashed out. 


IETF mailing list