IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] Live meeting? and my opinion. [Re: moving forward with schema mount]

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Fri, 26 January 2018 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA9512D87D for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:06:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.461
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT=1.449, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 ReghnhGKiT6a for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:06:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D0612D964 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:06:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tops.chopps.org (47-50-69-38.static.klmz.mi.charter.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5424262A00; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:06:07 +0000 (UTC)
References: <BF9C1543-4471-4CB3-9A26-451F45A2E4B6@juniper.net> <878tcnz9pc.fsf@nic.cz> <87wp04og8g.fsf@chopps.org> <20180126144138.tvx3375i5gshwu45@elstar.local>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 25.3.1
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Cc: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <20180126144138.tvx3375i5gshwu45@elstar.local>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 10:06:06 -0500
Message-ID: <87shasoe1t.fsf@chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Crkjb755tfQHJ8AKT7qkggdRHCg>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Live meeting? and my opinion. [Re: moving forward with schema mount]
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:06:10 -0000

In the context of holding up this work, I don't care one iota about YANG
library bis, and it works just fine with NMDA AFAICT.

We need models to get work done.

Thanks,
Chris.

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> writes:

> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 09:18:55AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
>>
>> Now it seems we are supposed to wait a bunch longer on yet other works
>> in progress for as near as I can tell (could be wrong here as I just
>> don't have time to read the very long email threads that netmod
>> generates) capturing meta-data in a cleaner way than another. This does
>> *not* seem like a reason to stall this work any further.
>>
>
> What is your interpretation of 'a bunch longer'? Or said differently,
> how much time do you think it will take to get the current schema
> mount approved (which has pending WG last call issues) and how much
> time would you find acceptable for a solution that also complies with
> NMDA and YANG library bis? I believe people are willing to give the
> later high priority.
>
> /js

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status