Hi,
I should probably just sit down and be quiet, but I have a few comments.
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 23.56.40 Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:16:02 +0200,
Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote:
instead of discussing if there was consensus AT THE BOF
(we all know that at this point in time we DO have
consensus between all the interested WORKERS in this space,
albeit that the current consensus was arrived at in further
(smaller) meetings, in extensive DT work after the IETF and
again after review on NGO list).
Which is why it is now returned to the broader community for
additional perspectives from those not already committed to a
particular path
Yes, indeed. It was returned to the broader community of people who care
about NETCONF on March 31, three weeks ago. See
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ngo/current/msg00745.html
If you don't think we have consensus, please demonstrate that by pointing out
public mail (other than yours) since that time that objects to this way
forward. You won't find it from the XSD people, from the RelaxNG/DSDL
people, from the Kalua people, from the YANG people (that's the complete list
of proposals that were shown at the CANMOD BOF) or from anyone else. In
fact, ALL of those groups were involved in formulating the charter that we're
now discussing. If that's not community consensus, then I have no idea what
is.
I propose that you list (again) your (technical) objections
to the the current proposal.
Sure. Based on my knowledge of modelling/protocol description
languages, the techniques that Rohan described based on RNG and
Schematron seemed to me quite adequate to get the job done and the
relatively large baggage introduced by defining another language
(YANG) which is then translated into them seems wholly unnecessary.
I won't speak for Rohan or for the XSD people, but _they_ aren't objecting to
this way forward, either. Again, they we were involved in the charter
formulation.
I appreciate that some people believe that YANG is more expressive and
better suited for this particular purpose, but I didn't see any really
convincing arguments of that (I certainly don't find the arguments in
F.2 of draft-bjorklund-netconf-yang dispositive). Given what I know of
the complexity of designing such languages, and of their ultimate
limitations and pitfalls, this seems like a bad technical tradeoff.
Almost everyone else (I can't claim 100%) that's gone through this whole
discussion for the last year (it all started in Prague) disagrees with you
and thinks it's a reasonable way forward.
If all you can tell us is that
we need to spend just more cycles on re-hashing the pros
and cons of many possible approaches, then I do not
see the usefulness of that discussion and with become
silent and leave your opion as one input to the IESG for
their decision making process.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. This is precisely the technical
discussion that needs to happen in a public forum, not on some design
team and then presented as a fait accompli.
You continue to try to make it sound like there's some little clique of people
who've done something in secret and who're now ramming it down the
community's collective throats. That's simply incorrect. The community has
reached consensus and wants to move on.
Cheers,
David
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf