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

David Partain <> Tue, 22 April 2008 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA373A6E8C; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C398A3A6AE2; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g-T0gdYDuFfm; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8229B28C35D; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id AE50920AC7; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:00:36 +0200 (CEST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-ac898bb00000193b-b5-480e51f41027
Received: from (unknown []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 8627A205E6; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:00:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:00:36 +0200
Received: from [] ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:00:35 +0200
From: David Partain <>
Organization: Ericsson AB
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:00:53 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Apr 2008 21:00:36.0119 (UTC) FILETIME=[E95E9A70:01C8A4BB]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
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


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.

> 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.

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.

Thereafter, the WG charter proposal was published on the NGO (netconf goes on) 
mailing list, which is a list used for non WG-related discussions but tightly 
coupled to NETCONF.  APPS area people were, of course, also involved.  The 
proposed charter was published well in advance of discussion within the IESG.  
There were some requests for changes (which happened), but no one jumped up 
and said, "NO WAY!"  So, I certainly think that indicates we have consensus 
in the NETCONF and APPS communities.

Then the IESG discussed the proposed charter and that's where this discussion 
comes up.  Other than your mail, there's been zero (public?) objection to 
forming this working group.

So, what's my point?  That everyone who cares about this work and is engaged 
in it _does_ agree that we have consensus to move forward in this direction, 
that there has been public scrutiny of the proposal, and that it's time to 
move on. 

I am completely convinced that more BOFs are not going to change any of this.  
It's time to move on and get some work done.


IETF mailing list