Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

["Mehmet Ersue" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lada, All,

I appreciate the discussion on the different aspects.

While I think similarly that an architecture document would be useful, I
wonder how long we would need to finalize a consistent overarching
architecture of the network configuration framework. 
Do we think we can stop everything and finalize such an architecture first?
IOW may we let other WGs and implementers of the datastore concept wait on
it that long?

After some thinking I come to conclusion that a practical approach would be
more valuable, where only a particular package like datastore handling is
revised.

Cheers,
Mehmet

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ladislav Lhotka [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 1:01 PM
> To: t.petch <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]>; Mehmet
> Ersue <[e-mail]>; Netconf <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
> 
> 
> > On 1 Mar 2017, at 10:58, t.petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[e-mail]>
> > To: "Mehmet Ersue" <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: "'Netconf'" <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 10:14 PM
> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 09:44:06PM +0100, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
> >>
> >>> 6. Revise the current NETCONF datastore concept as a protocol- and
> > modeling
> >>> language-independent standard as part of the network configuration
> >>> framework. Use the datastore solution proposal in
> >>> draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores as its basis. Will be used as a
> >>> normative reference in protocol specifications.
> >>
> >> There is no point in dupliating work in WGs that have a common
> >> history and a common set of active contributors.
> >
> > Juergen
> >
> > I am not sure what you are proposing;  Currently, datastores are
> > poorly described in RFC6241 and RFC7950 and the publication of another
> > incomplete description in the shape of
> > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores
> > will likely make things worse.
> >
> > I see a need for a datastores RFC, probably separate from the current
> > specifications, and do see the NETCONF WG as better placed to do it.
> >
> > I think that the rush to  get
> > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores
> > out is militating against the long term health of NETCONF.
> >
> 
> I agree, and I would also add draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount to it (of
> which I am a co-author).
> 
> Original NETCONF and YANG were limited but (mostly) coherent and, in a
> way, simple and elegant. The recent developments are afterthoughts and
> kitchen sinks that will destroy these qualities.
> 
> Instead of rushing with these documents, we should step back and think
> about a new architecture that could consistently support the new
> requirements.
> 
> Lada
> 
> 
> > Tom Petch
> >
> >> /js
> >>
> >> --
> >> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> >> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> >> Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Netconf mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
> 
> 
> 
>