Hi -
From: "Eric Rescorla" <ekr(_at_)networkresonance(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; <iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
...
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 think the simplest answer would be to simply publish the work that's already
been done and not bother with the IETF. There is simply no value in wasting
electrons on battles like this. Sure, some opportunities for technological
refinement and building a stronger community consensus migh tbe lost, but
that might be a small price to pay in comparison to the time and energy
required for all this pointless hoop-jumping. Particularly since the proposed/
draft/standard distinction has become so meaningless, it makes more
sense to just publish the spec and ignore the peanut gallery.
Randy
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf