IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] Reminder: Action by Dec 20th 2013 PLEASE: Draft charter after consensus call

"Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com> Wed, 18 December 2013 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <repenno@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9B911AE260 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:03:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.038
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z0L8a_m1dosk for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:03:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DCD71AE24E for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:03:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7937; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1387404207; x=1388613807; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=93FTj0+gYCBUUM9k60TC8XR7ja6l8sqZAM/txSJ5U+E=; b=fTjOdH3EFg1JtczOp8v+4HEY5lwJ9RvR3/beuqGELwfjoyNzZ27/4VHo YxKTICo9rwuhKEMWu1wYkMV721bQ/B03ubMN3IPOqlRHQKuH9sO5bSDux 5cfLvd8jZZ2QXPHTw0zwj95fQqwod0ryHmdlhG3+uFG+SBcYo6C2UN1ph c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhcFAHUaslKtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABZgkZEOFW5HoEdFnSCJQECBHkSAQgRAwECKDkUCQgCBA4Fh3ADEcNLCIcBF48BEQeENgSYFpIUgW2BPoIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,509,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="7739864"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Dec 2013 22:03:26 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rBIM3RU4029320 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:03:27 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.232]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:03:26 -0600
From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] Reminder: Action by Dec 20th 2013 PLEASE: Draft charter after consensus call
Thread-Index: AQHO/DY4mP8nGUIIXE2ynTV5Q3ELsJpaX/0A
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:03:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CED75AB4.75BD%repenno@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHS7JU=3TN+8=O8scCJb_cueU1On_eHT15pRf4VmQUYH+g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.82.242.89]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CED75AB475BDrepennociscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Reminder: Action by Dec 20th 2013 PLEASE: Draft charter after consensus call
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:03:31 -0000

I see as the same issue, different name.

If somebody wants to use some other transport besides HTTP should the work be done on some other WG or in Netconf?  If Netconf was mature enough it could be done in the other WG, otherwise in Netconf.
At this point I believe Netconf is the proper home for RESTconf.

Thanks,

Reinaldo

From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com<mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>>
Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 at 1:15 PM
To: Cisco Employee <repenno@cisco.com<mailto:repenno@cisco.com>>
Cc: ietfdbh <ietfdbh@comcast.net<mailto:ietfdbh@comcast.net>>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com<mailto:dromasca@avaya.com>>, "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net<mailto:bertietf@bwijnen.net>>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org<mailto:netconf@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Reminder: Action by Dec 20th 2013 PLEASE: Draft charter after consensus call

If we go to another WG, we would need Netconf folks to attend that other group as well.

We had a similar discussion in Netmod: Should we standardize Yang models for, say, ACLs in Netmod or the Internet area WG? If we go to Internet Area, Netconf/yang folks would need to attend, if we stay in Netmod, router folks would need to attend.



This is a different issue -- is YANG mature enough to let individual WGs manage
their own YANG development?  IMO, yes.  It should be done on a case-by-case basis.
E.g., The ACL module might be done in NETMOD rather than spin up a WG just for that.
But Topology might end up being done in I2RS because they are already chartered
to work on topology.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email