IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] FW: NETCONF WG Session Summary

Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> Fri, 30 March 2012 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <phil@juniper.net>
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 54F8221F8692 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.507
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rupwXkYcTkLk for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og113.obsmtp.com (exprod7og113.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDEAB21F84C9 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob113.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT3WqwQQWZBFJzWxXz2T/iRd7aVBygVEm@postini.com; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:44:58 PDT
Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:44:47 -0700
Received: from idle.juniper.net (idleski.juniper.net [172.25.4.26]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id q2UCil148417; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:44:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phil@juniper.net)
Received: from idle.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by idle.juniper.net (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2UCj90q072673; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:45:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from phil@idle.juniper.net)
Message-ID: <201203301245.q2UCj90q072673@idle.juniper.net>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
In-Reply-To: <20120330084213.GA49824@elstar.local>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:45:09 -0400
From: Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: netconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Netconf] FW: NETCONF WG Session Summary
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:45:02 -0000

Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
>On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:32:16AM +0200, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
>> Dear NETCONF WG,
>> 
>> please find below the summary of the NETCONF session in Paris.
>> 
>> The co-chairs would like to encourage the WG to debate on the issue for
>> NETCONF-Light discussed during the session as noted below.
>> Please discuss the pros and cons for a "netconf light with no need to
>> support any capabilities" vs. a "must document deviations" approach.
>
>There surely are more than those two options.

What is a '"must document deviations" approach'?  IIRC our
discussions of deviation had the underlaying belief that many
vendors would be unwilling to document deviations and tools
would need an out-of-band way to learn deviations for unwilling
vendors.  Is "MUST" supposed to address this issue or some other
issue?

Thanks,
 Phil

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email