[nscp] BoF request denied

Jelte Jansen <jelte@isc.org> Wed, 22 September 2010 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <jelte@isc.org>
X-Original-To: nscp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nscp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4813F3A6AA8 for <nscp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XPwaOwhnlqn7 for <nscp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpout1.ru.nl (smtpout1.ru.nl [131.174.66.174]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CFC03A694D for <nscp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS & ClamAV
Received: from tjeb.nl (vhe-520087.sshn.net [195.169.221.157]) by smtp.ru.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AFAD16E6A6 for <nscp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:33:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [149.20.48.168] (unknown [149.20.48.168]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tjeb.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB4CECFA03 for <nscp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:33:18 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4C9A4BE9.50105@isc.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:33:13 -0700
From: Jelte Jansen <jelte@isc.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: nscp@ietf.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [nscp] BoF request denied
X-BeenThere: nscp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Nameserver control/configuration protocol discussion list <nscp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nscp>, <mailto:nscp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nscp>
List-Post: <mailto:nscp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nscp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nscp>, <mailto:nscp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:35:52 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Hi,

the IESG/IAB have discussed the BoF request, and have decided that a BoF is 'not
needed'. To quote the message I got:

 "The IAB/IESG solidly supports the development of a YANG model for DNS
  configuration and would like the work to begin immediately.
  <snip>
  After some discussion, we decided that the DNSOPS should develop the YANG
  module. This supports an precedent established with SNMP MIBS (each WG is
  responsible to develop its own MIBs/YANG modules)."

I am talking to the dnsop chairs about this, and we are trying to figure out
what to do now. It is at this point unclear whether this is a question of 'mgmt
systems MUST use YANG', and we are waiting for an answer on this.

If this work is accepted by dnsop (this time...), it does mean a recharter
there, and it means that discussion on nscp should happen on their list.

However, for now, I think we should keep discussing scope (and technology, if
anyone has any input on that), here. If we have to move later, I'll try to find
a way to make the transfer as painless as possible.

Jelte
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkyaS+kACgkQ4nZCKsdOncXeXwCff1ORE2xcu07NvhMFs2VmNOh6
2goAniDsBX95yWWS5JxwQhE9PU0GIfs/
=ls8q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----