Well said Andy.
And I support the charter as well!
Bert Wijnen
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]Namens Andy
Bierman
Verzonden: dinsdag 22 april 2008 23:14
Aan: Randy Presuhn
CC: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Onderwerp: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Randy Presuhn wrote:
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.
This 'simple' approach doesn't move standardized network configuration
along at all, so it is not my first choice.
IMO, there is strong community consensus for the charter as it
is currently written. There are several technical approaches,
such as 'continue to write data models in XSD' which are
technically viable, but have no community consensus at all.
I don't think a formal WG process is needed to determine that
the strongest consensus exists for the approach currently outlined
in the charter. The 15 people on the design team represented
a wide cross section of those actually interested in this work.
I am among the 10 - 15 people who were not involved in the design team,
but agree with the charter. That seems like a lot of consensus
for this technical approach.
Randy
Andy
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf