Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Scope

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Juergen,

On 07/30/2015 08:44 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 07:31:34AM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
>>
>>> Being old fashioned, I
>>> believe the place to have this discussions that affects 'network
>>> management going forward' is the OPS area.
>>
>> So this can be read to mean that you are saying that all YANG model
>> definitions and discussions, as they "affect network management", should
>> take place in the OPS area.  Is this a correct interpretation?
> 
> No.

Great.

> 
>> If so, this isn't a particular scalable approach and doesn't reflect how the
>> IETF has done things in the past.  If you are saying that changes to
>> YANG, netconf, restconf, ..., must be discussed in the OPS area, then I
>> completely agree.
> 
> I am saying that if RFCs are affected that were done in the OPS area,
> then I think it is good idea to explain to the OPS area why they are
> not good enough. Except in special cases, I also think that WGs that
> produced an RFC ars the default place to discuss shortcomings of an
> RFC. 

100% agree.

> This is perhaps formally not required since everything belongs to
> the IETF but still I believe this is a good approach to avoid flapping
> (trying to use routing vocabular here, I might fail badly with it).

WFM.  I appreciate the effort to try to understand our (user and vendor)
perspective(s) as it clearly is different than what has been the focus
to date -- to me this is a symptom of the growing pains related to
successful use/adoption of a new technology.

Lou
> 
> /js
>