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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com> Tue, 22 April 2008 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEAAC3A6E23; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD43D28C2D7; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.495
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9N7eVIsra1MR; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from romeo.rtfm.com (unknown [74.95.2.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D43CD28C46A; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from romeo.rtfm.com (localhost.rtfm.com [127.0.0.1]) by romeo.rtfm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B72F5081A; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:25:55 -0700
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>
To: Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
In-Reply-To: <480E1BA1.1080606@andybierman.com>
References: <20080422161010.94BC15081A@romeo.rtfm.com> <480E1BA1.1080606@andybierman.com>
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: <20080422172556.0B72F5081A@romeo.rtfm.com>
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:08:49 -0700,
Andy Bierman wrote:
> 
> Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > I object to the formation of this WG with this charter.
> > 
> > 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. Rather, a number of proposals were presented, but no
> > strawpoll, hum, or sense of the room was taken, nor, as far as I can
> > determine, has there been any such consensus call been taken on any
> > list I'm aware of. This wasn't an accident--the BOF was explicitly
> > intended only to determine whether some work in this area should
> > proceed, not to select a technical approach.
> > 
> > I understand that an approach like this was proposed in the OPSAREA
> > meeting by Chris Newman and then that there was a breakout meeting
> > where it was discussed further. The minutes don't record any consensus
> > call on this combined direction (only strawpolls on the individual
> > proposals), and even if such a consensus call had been held, the
> > OPSAREA meeting would not be the appropriate place for it: this
> > discussion needs to happen in either the BOF (to allow cross-area
> > review) or in the designated WG, when it is formed. 
> >
> 
> 
> I believe there was consensus in the CANMOD BoF that
> the requirements were sufficiently understood, and
> the purpose of that BoF had been fulfilled.

Agreed.


> After the CANMOD BoF, a 15 person design team was formed,
> which reached consensus on a technical approach, embodied
> in the charter text.  There was also unanimous agreement
> on the charter, outside the design team (on the NGO mailing list).

Neither of these has any formal standing. The precise reason we
have BOFs is to have these discussions in person at IETF.


> > Accordingly, if this WG is to be formed, the entire section (and
> > corresponding milestones) which specifies the technology needs to be
> > removed. Rather, the first work item should be to select a technical
> > approach.
> 
> I thought the charter text did specify a technical approach,
> which is to utilize YANG as a high-level DML and map YANG
> constructs to DSDL and XSD.

Yes, that's what I'm objecting to, since that's far from the
only technical approach. For instance, one could just use DSDL
or XSD without YANG.


> Can you explain this work item further?

Uh, have a charter that doesn't specify the technical approach and
then have an open discussion in the WG meetings followed by selection
of a technical approach. Compare, for instance, the process that
P2PSIP is engaging in now.

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