RE: IETF & this list

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 10:38 PM 1/10/2003 -0800, Faye Ly wrote:
>Andy,
>
>I think it is a very good proposal.  But you don't mean to have STDCONF
>wg to replace this discussion group (for lack of a better term, as I am
>now educated that it is not a wg), do you?  I actually think STDCONF and
>XML management group (again for lack of a better term, as Xmlconf might
>be limited to a certain scope) can go in parallel.  Provided that enough
>people are interested to move forward both.

I didn't propose STDCONF as a replacement for this mailing list.
However, this group is unchartered, unfocused, and not making
any progress of formulating a plan to create IETF standards
for network management that will get used by network operators.

I think it's the OPS ADs responsibility to do something about
the 'NM problem'.  I don't care how they decide to do something,
but I want something to get done.  A lot of good input has been
collected from the operator community over the last 1+ years,
and dialogue between NM standards people and operators is better
than it's been in a decade. It would be a shame to squander any
momentum that exists, but that's what appears to be happening.


>-faye

Andy





>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andy Bierman [mailto:abierman@cisco.com] 
>Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 7:18 PM
>To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
>Cc: RJ Atkinson; xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: RE: IETF & this list
>
>At 01:02 AM 1/11/2003 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>>> AFAIK, neither OPS AD has made any official announcement regarding
>>> an XMLCONF WG.  I think the only decision made wrt/ the XMLCONF BOF
>>> was to start a mailing list and discuss the issues further.  
>>> 
>>
>>The original BOF was not tasked to be a prelude to a WG or to see
>>if a WG was needed. It was to discuss and survey what sort of
>>things people are/were doing with XML in the area of configuring
>>devices and to try and see if XML was/is doing a much better job
>>in that space than anything we currently do.
>>
>>Some people came with requests for various WGs afterwards, for
>>which we have not yet considered one as a serious candidate.
>>
>>I have been asking for a proposed charter, I think Randy has 
>>send us one that looked kind of OK, but we want more discussion
>>on it and a better "problem statement and vision of how to go
>>aboiut solving the problem". I'd have to go and reread Andy's
>>proposal...  but as far as I recall it did not address that well
>>enough yet.
>
>This is not an entirely fair characterization of the STDCONF WG
>charter proposal I sent to this list on 9/25/02.  I was asked
>by Randy Bush to write up a charter proposal that focused on
>moving us forward.  I proposed a WG or design team that would
>spend 3 - 6 months establishing a development plan to address
>Operator Requirements.
>
>More than 3 months has gone by and no plan has been started. 
>One of the operator concerns is that the IETF doesn't work 
>fast enough, so NM solutions arrive too late to help...
>
>
>>In the meanwhile, this list can off course discuss aspects of
>>using XML for configuration or about possible requirements for
>>configuration.
>>
>>Hope this helps,
>>Bert 
>
>Andy
>
>
>--
>to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
>the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
>archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>
>
>--
>to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
>the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
>archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/> 


--
to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>