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

+1 Dean.
I’m having this discussion on daily bases...
I do care about sustainability and long term growth though 

Regards,
Jeff

> On Jan 26, 2018, at 07:30, Dean Bogdanovic <ivandean@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I will ask a different question
> 
> How many people have implemented the draft? And are they talking from experience implementing the model? I have implemented LNE and NI and to be honest, when customers ask about IETF compatibility, i reference a draft and tell them it will take long time until IETF finalizes the RFC. When it does, we will update the implementation if needed. Within WG are hearing very little about implementation and operational experience and feedback during the process. 
> If any company had to wait two or more years to release software, they would find themselves out of customers.
> 
> Dean
> 
>> On Jan 26, 2018, at 10:22 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>> 
>> OK, I accept that you do not care. Please also accept that others do
>> care. And these people believe YANG library bis is needed.
>> 
>> Since you do not want to read emails and involve yourself in
>> discussions of technical details, I assume this is where our
>> conversation stops.
>> 
>> I tought you wanted to start a constructive conversation towards a
>> resolution of the problem but it seems I misunderstood.
>> 
>> /js
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:06:06AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 
>> -- 
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod