Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:58:58AM +0000, t.petch wrote:
> 
> 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.

You need to tell us why draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores is
incomplete and you need to tell us why NETMOD (which did RFC7950) is
not able to complete it while NETCONF is able to complete it.  I see
the same people actively contributing in both WGs. As I said before,
if the split of the WGs becomes an issue, we should merge the two WGs
into one.

At the end, we have to do what makes sense for the industry using
NETCONF, YANG, RESTCONF, ... technology and discussions into which WG
pieces of puzzle belong is just distracting us from doing useful work.

> 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.

If something is wrong with draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores then
by all means contribute to the effort. I doubt that replicating this
work in a second WG will giveus better results.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>