Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

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

Hi Lada,

I am worrying that we would need to stop the work we are doing currently.

Cheers,
Mehmet

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ladislav Lhotka [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 5:17 PM
> To: Mehmet Ersue <[e-mail]>; 't.petch' <[e-mail]>
> Cc: 'Jürgen Schönwälder' <[e-mail]>;
> 'Netconf' <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
> 
> Mehmet Ersue <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> It needn't necessarily be 6244bis or something, but we need to review where
> we are, what the new requirements mean, and then split the problem into
> manageable chunks/layers. And then I guess it may also be easier to split the
> work between the two WGs.
> 
> > Do we think we can stop everything and finalize such an architecture
> > first?
> 
> If we don't do that, I am seriously concerned that we are currently heading
> towards something that is incomprehensible and extremely difficult to
> implement - if not outright broken.
> 
> > IOW may we let other WGs and implementers of the datastore concept
> > wait on it that long?
> 
> It would be much worse to let people jump on what we come up with and
> then realize that it won't work.
> 
> Lada
> 
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67