Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Watsen" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 8:33 PM

> > 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.
>
> That's an unfair characterization.  The plan is for revised-datastores
to
> be a complete definition, as I think you'll appreciate when its update
is
> posted in a couple weeks.

Kent

All I have to go on is the published I-D and the comments on the WG list
e.g. last month "templates?  um we don't know what they are!"  (I have
followed URI struggling with templates - it took them years)

So I think you are agreeing with me that based on all I have to go on,
the current description is incomplete and likely to make things worse -
I can but hope things improve:-)

Tom Petch

> > 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.
>
> Agree that a separate RFC is needed.  Disagree that NETCONF WG is the
> better WG for it, for reasons mentioned by Rob.
>
> > I think that the rush to get draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores
> > out is militating against the long term health of NETCONF.
>
> Rush?  It's been almost a full two years since we started the opstate
> discussions.  Admittedly, it mostly occurred on the NETMOD list, maybe
> you missed it?
>
> Kent