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

"Randy Presuhn" <> Tue, 22 April 2008 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96D83A6C4F; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BED43A6969 for <>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.11
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iAnpJXMbfDig for <>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475123A68CA for <>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=e3QISYR8+DoFMl2gdnw7vrODZ4RXryhhi/yFS9ApYmamMGaMKlbg0tol1qXBfMQC; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=oemcomputer) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1JoOiJ-0000Px-Py for; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:03:40 -0400
Message-ID: <008301c8a4ab$b9524a80$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: "Randy Presuhn" <>
To: <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:04:42 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d8885d2a9c731cc89117fbc1f285e3a490bf256fdf08c62ca5da350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
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

Hi -

> From: "Eric Rescorla" <>
> To: <>rg>; <>
> 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.


IETF mailing list