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

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.

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