RE: IETF & this list

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

>>> I think it's the OPS ADs responsibility to do something about
>>> the 'NM problem'.
>> it would seem hard to explain this position in light of the
>> discussions on problem-statement, where i interpret non-trivial
>> sentiment against AD-driven architecture.
> I didn't say the ADs should write the RFCs.  The ADs should
> put a process in motion (e.g., charter a WG) to do that.

we tend not to start wgs without active discussion of serious
drafts.  maybe i am missing something, but i don't see those
things yet.

what we really don't like to do, and public consensus would seem
to support it, is to charter wgs which do not have clear goals, a
technical overview, a roadmap, etc.  again, maybe i am missing
something, but i don't see those things yet.

> I think a lot of specific issues have been identified as a
> result of the OPS roadshow and IAB NM workshop meetings.

agreed.  but issues do not a wg, protocol, ... make.

> why not replace proprietary screen-scraping CLI scripts with a
> protocol providing a better programmatic API?

please be more specific.  e.g., are you suggesting standardizing
the syntax and/or semantics of configuring devices?  are you
suggesting a vendor-independent model of middle transformation
layer?

>> talk is cheap, send vision.
> Some of us are working on just that, but the I-D isn't done yet.

cool!  i, for one, eagerly await the result.

randy


--
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/>