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

Andy Bierman <> Wed, 23 April 2008 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E036628C144; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5CA728C0F8 for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.259
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.259 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.340, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DsU8sJCPPEAo for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 9BC8C3A6D66 for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 46393 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2008 14:45:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ? ( with plain) by with SMTP; 23 Apr 2008 14:45:00 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: diOmcUMVM1ltUI6v15SIvlvtf0JcilJgGEEtEpPjzhMeYF5Z3OjcWG0rDRaSrPZz40iW17MuYJUHfT0zEHJ0bzp3dhCnMQ36g2dWdw--
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:44:58 -0700
From: Andy Bierman <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Harald Alvestrand <>
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
References: <> <> <> <004101c8a4df$d7bfe980$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> 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 been a month since PHL.
> The IETF's supposed to be able to work on mailing lists between 
> meetings, including being able to work when no WG exists - which of 
> course means working on mailing lists that are not WG lists.

Agreed -- this also means that the 'technical approach' straw poll
that did not occur in the CANMOD BoF is not really that important,
since final consensus needs to be confirmed on a designated mailing list.

> I congratulate the participants who worked on the charter on managing to 
> have the discussion and come to consensus on an approach. I think it's 
> up to Eric to demonstrate to the IESG that there's support in the 
> community for disagreeing with the consensus of the discussing participants.


15 person (large!) design team.  1000s of emails.  Done in a month.
This is more effort than most WGs can muster.

>                  Harald


IETF mailing list