IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

"Mehmet Ersue" <mersue@gmail.com> Thu, 02 March 2017 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mersue@gmail.com>
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 B91621299EF for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 07:37:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 rHAu5D1eWY5l for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 07:37:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AF751299FC for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 07:36:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id n11so28452148wma.0 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 07:36:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=pWlvsiTYLnIlFTCCACIKAJSnwybgMkAMeR8JVDUDIQU=; b=oiTqLlP8LG3vuThMLwrdPpbHgI4RazE+IPLiiZ2C1lFMpsNwyeMUiEKho7KtjiWtPO kVXFGgQJVkKonct35g0kJnB1JHq9Y9CvSzVqIkHIkto8OWTKEQOIu0VEwFdw/W/TBpTM NotM+8KmWJYrQeZMD/tdgAIcfi7Di+hWhkqqp8C1mZe5Fi53kUdxhD/t+XUzk3oQpIv/ ytNKQWH14sOJdW4MgKyAFFmbawUJM8swpJ4rndzSs4HWntuYGuLNrVCOdeSmF4zLGng1 dmHYiQzx1xWmrNyjO5eatCPWsHe6knU/1q+28/56ESr5ozlGKJogenWbjS5Xrl0zoa99 E9ZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=pWlvsiTYLnIlFTCCACIKAJSnwybgMkAMeR8JVDUDIQU=; b=S+1LQkOm5LMwJBxDMYsRNtIUG6r2N3iwK8fjoX+fBU3wcfaV023uiCaGd5/Q9QWxGC T1L8WYpSJJ97SzW4agQDobHNb9eOfe/KQA8qbOrzyRRTvY3C5lPMaDRb1ZLIGUzwPuMF GJZwOKxuksW0nM0umw8+l3gdkG66C16d+sAHeLwdUH0O4aMI4xUt3ZZbYcxc22gEJJhs lyMUz3CosBUn1tFgAQAm1FoEMU/nhZIBF0sWwDNPK5kSXgpmZZxP8UhmlBFWCUltW4FY pTGPjrOKcoq7xTW7O4+Zg7D4BdEFNLIah/DbRssdDE1zE7+ntmTHurGmdtQ4l/svr481 17NQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mZJo164kfEdU4xoPqdfs5VNqLk5CpI7GSosJjhvgtS3nTUkJRuTaSGKJLjkyUu0w==
X-Received: by 10.28.209.202 with SMTP id i193mr8752779wmg.17.1488469015532; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 07:36:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOPFLHJVQJ (p5B341095.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [91.52.16.149]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o15sm3241177wra.61.2017.03.02.07.36.54 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Mar 2017 07:36:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Mehmet Ersue <mersue@gmail.com>
To: 'Andy Bierman' <andy@yumaworks.com>
References: <014101d2913a$3db72870$b9257950$@gmail.com> <CABCOCHTFi55qg7F5LMVUcEkuwtvsT6+mDJ=qPZ_H=rA1phdyAg@mail.gmail.com> <CABCOCHS3aHrJfT7LNQ-2+Z0LnVH9GMhoC+e+RnEobAygqaDWxg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHS3aHrJfT7LNQ-2+Z0LnVH9GMhoC+e+RnEobAygqaDWxg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 16:36:53 +0100
Message-ID: <01be01d2936a$d1ec5ab0$75c51010$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01BF_01D29373.33B1FB30"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIyv9GjSLwvl3/aW7VefmnI1KPkxQF6MovdAZu7DN2gqJ5yYA==
Content-Language: de
X-AVK-Virus-Check: AVA 25.10928;F984776D
X-AVK-Spam-Check: 1; str=0001.0A0C0204.58B83C16.0145,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0; AE713
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/C_FuzuhG0pquzWLnczY0ZlswJ7o>
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: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:37:06 -0000

Hi Andy,

 

I also think a new version obsoleting the current RESTCONF document is not needed.

The bis-documents can be prepared as updates. The WG will decide which way to go.

 

It is true that we need to plan the schedule based on 7950bis timing.

 

Mehmet

 

From: Andy Bierman [mailto:andy@yumaworks.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 2:45 AM
To: Mehmet Ersue <mersue@gmail.com>
Cc: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>; Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

 

 

 

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com <mailto:andy@yumaworks.com> > wrote:

....

Sep 2017          WGLC for NETCONF and RESTCONF bis documents

Oct 2017          Submit to NETCONF and RESTCONF bis documents AD/IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard

 

 

 

 

 

I am opposed to creating new versions of NETCONF or RESTCONF at this time.

I do not see anything in the charter that cannot be defined in RFCs that update (not obsolete)

the existing protocols.  Both are designed to allow new functionality to be

added and advertised as capabilities.

 

 

I should clarify this comment.

NETCONF was last published in June 2011 so it is not unreasonable to

do a new version.  But all protocol features should be on the table.

There is a list (in case you have an important feature to add to the list)

 

https://github.com/netconf-wg/rfc6241bis/issues

 

If the scope is just support for revised datastores, then than can go in its own RFC.

If the scope is applying the lessons we have learned since June 2011 to make

NETCONF much better, then 6241bis is appropriate.

 

RESTCONF was published a month ago so a new version should not be in scope.

 

 

Andy

 

 

Andy

 

_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org <mailto:Netconf@ietf.org> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email