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

"Bert Wijnen - IETF" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> Tue, 22 April 2008 21:23 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 B23303A68CE; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:23:28 -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 7E5C53A6888 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 hiFyQDkMG0ph for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.versatel.net (relay.versatel.net [62.250.3.110]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 78B473A68CE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 60652 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2008 21:23:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO bwMedion) (87.215.199.34) by relay.versatel.net with SMTP; 22 Apr 2008 21:23:26 -0000
From: "Bert Wijnen - IETF" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
To: "Andy Bierman" <ietf@andybierman.com>, "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:23:29 +0200
Message-ID: <NIEJLKBACMDODCGLGOCNCEGPEMAA.bertietf@bwijnen.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: <480E551B.7000703@andybierman.com>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Importance: Normal
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

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