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

Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> Tue, 22 April 2008 21:14 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 5938428C42D; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:14:04 -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 E568228C2C6 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643]
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 n9vYkxUHYEsT for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp117.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com (smtp117.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com [69.147.64.90]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DEA6C28C481 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 25887 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2008 21:14:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (andybierman@att.net@67.127.98.29 with plain) by smtp117.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2008 21:14:05 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: ULxuMnAVM1nI.lNgLitqRPTu9b_r_WrY1Hlf6b6IUzK9gNL6mq89KmA.OI4DT4J1K6K7K5rMBI78wuhpM23vHxbYygj40gYbCh.jvQ--
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Message-ID: <480E551B.7000703@andybierman.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:14:03 -0700
From: Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
References: <20080422161010.94BC15081A@romeo.rtfm.com> <008301c8a4ab$b9524a80$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
In-Reply-To: <008301c8a4ab$b9524a80$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
Cc: 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

Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
> 
>> From: "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@networkresonance.com>
>> To: <ietf@ietf.org>rg>; <iesg@ietf.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
> ...
>> 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 think the simplest answer would be to simply publish the work that's already
> been done and not bother with the IETF.  There is simply no value in wasting
> electrons on battles like this.  Sure, some opportunities for technological
> refinement and building a stronger community consensus migh tbe lost, but
> that might be a small price to pay in comparison to the time and energy
> required for all this pointless hoop-jumping.  Particularly since the proposed/
> draft/standard distinction has become so meaningless, it makes more
> sense to just publish the spec and ignore the peanut gallery.
> 

This 'simple' approach doesn't move standardized network configuration
along at all, so it is not my first choice.

IMO, there is strong community consensus for the charter as it
is currently written.  There are several technical approaches,
such as 'continue to write data models in XSD' which are
technically viable, but have no community consensus at all.

I don't think a formal WG process is needed to determine that
the strongest consensus exists for the approach currently outlined
in the charter.  The 15 people on the design team represented
a wide cross section of those actually interested in this work.
I am among the 10 - 15 people who were not involved in the design team,
but agree with the charter.  That seems like a lot of consensus
for this technical approach.



> Randy

Andy

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