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

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:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/minutes/canmod.txt

> 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. 

-Ekr

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf