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

Well said Andy.

And I support the charter as well!

Bert Wijnen 

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org]Namens Andy
> Bierman
> Verzonden: dinsdag 22 april 2008 23:14
> Aan: Randy Presuhn
> CC: ietf@ietf.org
> Onderwerp: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
> 
> 
> Randy Presuhn wrote:
> > Hi -
> > 
> >> From: "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@networkresonance.com>
> >> To: <ietf@ietf.org>; <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
> 
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf