Re: [NGO] NETMOD charter

Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
> 
>> From: "Andy Bierman" <ietf@andybierman.com>
>> To: "NETCONF Goes On" <ngo@ietf.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 4:30 PM
>> Subject: [NGO] NETMOD charter
> ...
>> I would like to get a NETMOD WG chartered before the next IETF,
>> not keep having BoFs that may eventually lead to a WG some year.
> ...
> 
> The folks from the rcdml design team (along with folks from other teams)
> have been asked by Dan to come up with a charter proposal for discussion.
> Our goal is to have it ready within two weeks.  (Holy week stretches out
> what would otherwise have been on a shorter timeline.)
> 
> A very broad outline (and please, let's hold off on the detail discussion
> until we've come up with a proposal with enough detail to support a
> discussion!) of the deliverables is this:
>   - an operator-friendly data modeling language, based on the yang
>     proposal
>   - the modeling language would provide basic support for object-oriented
>     modeling concepts (no intentions of getting carried away!)
>   - a lossless transform into a tool-friendly representation, probably
>     built on the DSDL proposal
> 

This is generally good news.

We have not used object-oriented data models for network configuration
before in the IETF.  I do not understand why this change in policy
is needed now.  There is no doubt that OO can help describe some
really complicated conceptual models.  IMO, however, it makes
simple tasks far more complicated.  These 'mundane' data models
(e.g., schema-discovery, partial-lock, create-subscription, etc.)
far outnumber the massive DIFFSERV type of data models.
OO just makes these simple models way too complicated.

We have also been using XSD for the canonical XML syntax
representation in protocol documents for quite some time.
I strong object to changing this policy to RelaxNG or DSDL
without IETF Approval first.

> (I gave a more detailed account of my personal view of how things might
> proceed on Friday morning at the nmrg meeting.)
> 
> There's obviously more to this all, but the good news is that our AD was
> able to get a bunch of people into a room and hammer out what appears
> to be a reasonable way forward that folks can live with.
> 
> Randy

Andy

> 
> _______________________________________________
> NGO mailing list
> NGO@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
NGO@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo