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

Wes Hardaker <> Wed, 23 April 2008 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EC2828C2EB; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0EF3A68E6 for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.778
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.778 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.210, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ul2DSE80Ri4K for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783293A6C3B for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14E422F2EEB; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=received:from:to:cc:subject:organization:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; q=dns/txt; s=wesmail; bh=u4IrP+HdtjUUf0kfEcaycyr7bzQ=; b=ineU0WZxJBh85Zj28ydirPwaqfyqZKF/K2zELOkzFSjDMjHdMaU0MoY2yeDI0sX+2J3/ap7LBiDpLXn6MKhK3dm6/k9Ih23K2RIdzVlxRZ3YA7cAI3LMYEp4mm3WR3m+5GNeXC4wzTjkWTYTjflerLEsFV5EOqKt620PUU4tkOU=
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 274) id E3C3A2F2EE2; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <>
To: Eric Rescorla <>
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Organization: Sparta
References: <> <> <> <004101c8a4df$d7bfe980$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:56:40 -0700
In-Reply-To: <> (Eric Rescorla's message of "Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:45:02 -0700")
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) XEmacs/21.4.21 (linux, no MULE)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <>,
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

>>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:45:02 -0700, Eric Rescorla <> said:

ER> I remain concerned that this is the wrong technical approach; it
ER> appears to me to be unnecessary and overcomplicated. However, it's
ER> clear that's a minority opinion, so I'll drop my objection to this
ER> charter.

At the risk of getting things thrown at me:

1) I too actually have issues with the YANG proposal as it stands.
2) But I do think it's a slightly better starting place than the other
   proposals, and thus don't take issue with letting the WG start there.

In particular, I strongly believe (and said this at a mic) that the
result has to optimized for people that don't understand complex
languages like with hard to read syntaxes like XSD, etc.  I think a
different language, like YANG, is necessary as the existing languages
simply don't meet that goal.  YANG does meet this goal better than
others but I don't think it goes far enough.  But I don't think the
creation of the working group will mean changes can't be made to the
results of a design team.  Generically speaking, a design team is tasked
with doing the best they can but it is still up to working group
consensus to say "that'll do" or "that'll do with these modifications".
Wes Hardaker
Sparta, Inc.
IETF mailing list