Re: [netconf] Adoption call for draft-kwatsen-netconf-http-client-server-04

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rob,


> [RW]
> Do we require consensus from the httpbis WG if we want to use ietf-http-server.yang?

As I understand it, WGs are allowed to standardize anything within their charter without the need to consult other working groups, unless the work falls within the scope of another WG's charter.  Here is the httpbis charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/charter <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/charter>.


> If we do, then how long will that take?  We really want to get these drafts and YANG modules finished (even if they are not perfect).

In my opinion, the very limited scope of the existing http-client-server draft is right-sized and likely applies to *all* HTTP implementations.  I feel that the HTTP-chairs were/are (depending on how much of this thread they're reading) simply unclear with regards to intention.  Had the clear majority of the NETCONF WG said that the existing name was best, then the chairs could've declared "rough consensus" (and pass it to the IESG in the shepherd writeup).

Folks keep thinking that this one draft is going to delay things, but forget that it is not the proverbial long pole in the tent.  One thing that would help things go faster would be to parallelize the effort.  Me driving everything isn't good.  Does somebody want to drive running the http-client-server draft by HTTP experts?  Does anyone know an HTTP-expert that has YANG-clue?


Kent // contributor