On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:45:02 -0700, Eric Rescorla
<ekr(_at_)networkresonance(_dot_)com> said:
ER> I remain concerned that this is the wrong technical approach; it
ER> appears to me to be unnecessary and overcomplicated. However, it's
ER> clear that's a minority opinion, so I'll drop my objection to this
ER> charter.
At the risk of getting things thrown at me:
1) I too actually have issues with the YANG proposal as it stands.
2) But I do think it's a slightly better starting place than the other
proposals, and thus don't take issue with letting the WG start there.
In particular, I strongly believe (and said this at a mic) that the
result has to optimized for people that don't understand complex
languages like with hard to read syntaxes like XSD, etc. I think a
different language, like YANG, is necessary as the existing languages
simply don't meet that goal. YANG does meet this goal better than
others but I don't think it goes far enough. But I don't think the
creation of the working group will mean changes can't be made to the
results of a design team. Generically speaking, a design team is tasked
with doing the best they can but it is still up to working group
consensus to say "that'll do" or "that'll do with these modifications".
--
Wes Hardaker
Sparta, Inc.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf