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

Eric Rescorla <> Wed, 23 April 2008 03:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 213183A6B55; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FDD73A6C71 for <>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:51:34 -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 7YRTX5Z7WGg0 for <>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDDBC3A6B55 for <>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED17E5081A; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:55:08 -0700
From: Eric Rescorla <>
To: "Randy Presuhn" <>
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
In-Reply-To: <004101c8a4df$d7bfe980$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
References: <> <> <> <004101c8a4df$d7bfe980$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
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 19:17:47 -0600,
Randy Presuhn wrote:
> 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. 

Well, it's certainly true that the terms--agreed to by the IESG and
the IAB--on which the BOF were held were that there not be a beauty
contest at the BOF but that there first be a showing that there was
consensus to do work in this area at all. I'm certainly willing to cop
to being one of the people who argued for that, but I was far
from the only one. If you want to blame me for that, go ahead.

In any case, now that consensus to do *something* has been 
established it is the appropriate time to have discussion on 
the technology. I certainly never imagined that just because
there weren't hums taken in PHL that that meant no hums would
ever be taken.

> (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.)

Given that the BOF was in fact held and the WG is now being
proposed, "largely ignored" isn't quite the way I would characterize
the situation.

IETF mailing list