IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Sat, 24 February 2018 16:37 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 6215E127599 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 08:37:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 I38HcTS8Bd3B for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 08:37:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01EC0126D05 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 08:37:13 -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 17B5C62A2F; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:37:12 +0000 (UTC)
References: <195c3186-25ce-3019-1eda-34096fbc8de3@cisco.com> <20180223.103628.1174590223555999274.mbj@tail-f.com> <61afc424-4131-2871-b752-59c086dd4727@labn.net> <20180223.135509.1022283362077802966.mbj@tail-f.com> <d95dfc69-8a84-840f-8dd4-ee3b38bfbdd3@labn.net> <8760c49e-1304-0d55-6e38-004dfaca570c@cisco.com> <161c3185fd0.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <20180223192814.xpicpsmsbpcqnwyg@elstar.local>
User-agent: mu4e 1.0; emacs 25.3.1
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Cc: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, netmod@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <20180223192814.xpicpsmsbpcqnwyg@elstar.local>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:37:11 -0500
Message-ID: <87vaem9weg.fsf@chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/zq7CUNT826PRRBFAITm_xRtue40>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in 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: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:37:14 -0000

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> writes:
> - For the pre 09 'camp', it seems integration with YLbis is the key
>   technical requirement that is driving them.
>
> What is the key technical critical issue for the other camp?

We have RFCs in the publication queue (i.e., awaiting RFC numbers) to manage VPNs, VMs, etc, that are literally only blocked on this work being published (as written). To change this document in the proposed fashion invalidates the pending RFCs which would then need to be pulled from the publication queue and reworked along with the new proposed changes. The industry is waiting on and needs these RFCs to get work done. I do not think it's reasonable to ask the industry to now wait even longer to go back and rewrite what is already good enough and ready for publication and use.

Thanks,
Chris.

>
> /js

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email