Re: [Netconf] Netconf Light or Netconf for constrained devices

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

...
> You correctly figured out that section 2 provides two motivations
> (sections 2.1 and 2.2) but you incorrectly lump them together thereby
> creating noise but not a sound argument.
>

So you admit that sec. 2.2 has nothing to do with constrained devices.
Because the WG chairs asked if people wanted to work on
NETCONF for constrained devices.  They did not ask if the
WG wants to work on NETCONF Light.

Does anybody besides the co-authors want to solve the problems
identified in sec 2.2?  Please speak up, yes or no.
I agree with Bob that a standard subset of NETCONF picked by the WG is better
than a random subset picked by each vendor.  Does anybody prefer
a vendor-selected random subset instead of a meaningful subset selected
by the WG?

If the WG comes to some consensus on the problem space, then
we can talk about your 'feature-based' solution that doesn't
actually work because there are no corresponding if-feature
statements in the ietf-netconf module that would make the
new features relevant in YANG.

> /js
>

Andy