IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Wed, 01 March 2017 12:01 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 511EE129522 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 04:01:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 6vWU6GbQoHbE for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 04:01:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61069129525 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 04:01:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:ddb5:e7d5:e3da:2a2d] (unknown [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:ddb5:e7d5:e3da:2a2d]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60B22690D8; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 13:01:27 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1488369687; bh=oRKnyeRNG3VJPvEPBXUgJlueY0gBSa/jKI84QkFxumA=; h=From:Date:To; b=T6aHswRvuzHJbjndRYwIgXkDySVrpD4tvjMiET2NRlyDMDGj+l9BDCN2MA9d/qW7c ZlVh8woyqmSbThhk6CaZ1HBjDixjdsQtR6PTV1PeVWXJPDRh0/GKlt9fru4Rf3KtZp VlYbZzhuglHBG1p/yYkSVh0dU4zy5rGtYpyr2Dls=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <026f01d29273$5d57dfa0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 13:01:26 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F1EB9C98-BB1C-410D-9D6D-1777A96148C6@nic.cz>
References: <014101d2913a$3db72870$b9257950$@gmail.com> <20170227221434.GB68878@elstar.local> <026f01d29273$5d57dfa0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/By_fCPcEu_A2q5hblWRwdU_iACo>
Cc: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 01 Mar 2017 12:01:35 -0000

> On 1 Mar 2017, at 10:58, t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
> To: "Mehmet Ersue" <mersue@gmail.com>
> Cc: "'Netconf'" <netconf@ietf.org>
> 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: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Netconf mailing list
>> Netconf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email