ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)

2008-04-22 10:23:08
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:08:49 -0700,
Andy Bierman wrote:

Eric Rescorla wrote:
I object to the formation of this WG with this charter.

While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest
in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical
direction. Rather, a number of proposals were presented, but no
strawpoll, hum, or sense of the room was taken, nor, as far as I can
determine, has there been any such consensus call been taken on any
list I'm aware of. This wasn't an accident--the BOF was explicitly
intended only to determine whether some work in this area should
proceed, not to select a technical approach.

I understand that an approach like this was proposed in the OPSAREA
meeting by Chris Newman and then that there was a breakout meeting
where it was discussed further. The minutes don't record any consensus
call on this combined direction (only strawpolls on the individual
proposals), and even if such a consensus call had been held, the
OPSAREA meeting would not be the appropriate place for it: this
discussion needs to happen in either the BOF (to allow cross-area
review) or in the designated WG, when it is formed. 



I believe there was consensus in the CANMOD BoF that
the requirements were sufficiently understood, and
the purpose of that BoF had been fulfilled.

Agreed.


After the CANMOD BoF, a 15 person design team was formed,
which reached consensus on a technical approach, embodied
in the charter text.  There was also unanimous agreement
on the charter, outside the design team (on the NGO mailing list).

Neither of these has any formal standing. The precise reason we
have BOFs is to have these discussions in person at IETF.


Accordingly, if this WG is to be formed, the entire section (and
corresponding milestones) which specifies the technology needs to be
removed. Rather, the first work item should be to select a technical
approach.

I thought the charter text did specify a technical approach,
which is to utilize YANG as a high-level DML and map YANG
constructs to DSDL and XSD.

Yes, that's what I'm objecting to, since that's far from the
only technical approach. For instance, one could just use DSDL
or XSD without YANG.


Can you explain this work item further?

Uh, have a charter that doesn't specify the technical approach and
then have an open discussion in the WG meetings followed by selection
of a technical approach. Compare, for instance, the process that
P2PSIP is engaging in now.

-Ekr
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf