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

[David Partain <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I should probably just sit down and be quiet, but I have a few comments.

On Tuesday 22 April 2008 23.56.40 Eric Rescorla wrote:
> At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:16:02 +0200,
>
> Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote:
> > instead of discussing if there was consensus AT THE BOF
> > (we all know that at this point in time we DO have
> > consensus between all the interested WORKERS in this space,
> > albeit that the current consensus was arrived at in further
> > (smaller) meetings, in extensive DT work after the IETF and
> > again after review on NGO list).
>
> Which is why it is now returned to the broader community for
> additional perspectives from those not already committed to a
> particular path

Yes, indeed.  It was returned to the broader community of people who care 
about NETCONF on March 31, three weeks ago.  See
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ngo/current/msg00745.html

If you don't think we have consensus, please demonstrate that by pointing out 
public mail (other than yours) since that time that objects to this way 
forward.  You won't find it from the XSD people, from the RelaxNG/DSDL 
people, from the Kalua people, from the YANG people (that's the complete list 
of proposals that were shown at the CANMOD BOF) or from anyone else.  In 
fact, ALL of those groups were involved in formulating the charter that we're 
now discussing.  If that's not community consensus, then I have no idea what 
is.

> > I propose that you list (again) your (technical) objections
> > to the the current proposal.
>
> Sure. Based on my knowledge of modelling/protocol description
> languages, the techniques that Rohan described based on RNG and
> Schematron seemed to me quite adequate to get the job done and the
> relatively large baggage introduced by defining another language
> (YANG) which is then translated into them seems wholly unnecessary.

I won't speak for Rohan or for the XSD people, but _they_ aren't objecting to 
this way forward, either.  Again, they we were involved in the charter 
formulation.

> I appreciate that some people believe that YANG is more expressive and
> better suited for this particular purpose, but I didn't see any really
> convincing arguments of that (I certainly don't find the arguments in
> F.2 of draft-bjorklund-netconf-yang dispositive). Given what I know of
> the complexity of designing such languages, and of their ultimate
> limitations and pitfalls, this seems like a bad technical tradeoff.

Almost everyone else (I can't claim 100%) that's gone through this whole 
discussion for the last year (it all started in Prague) disagrees with you 
and thinks it's a reasonable way forward.

> > If all you can tell us is that
> > we need to spend just more cycles on re-hashing the pros
> > and cons of many possible approaches, then I do not
> > see the usefulness of that discussion and with become
> > silent and leave your opion as one input to the IESG for
> > their decision making process.
>
> Unfortunately, it's not that simple. This is precisely the technical
> discussion that needs to happen in a public forum, not on some design
> team and then presented as a fait accompli.

You continue to try to make it sound like there's some little clique of people 
who've done something in secret and who're now ramming it down the 
community's collective throats.  That's simply incorrect.  The community has 
reached consensus and wants to move on.

Cheers,

David
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf