Re: draft-enns-*.txt

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 08:01 AM 2/17/2003 -0500, RJ Atkinson wrote:

>On Sunday, Feb 16, 2003, at 19:30 America/Montreal, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>>A number of us have drafted a proposal for an XML-based
>>configuration protocol that can be found at:
>>
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-enns-xmlconf-spec-00.txt
>>
>>Please feel free to comment to the authors or to this
>>list.
>
>Thanks, very interesting.
>
>I'd like to float a possibly wacky idea among the folks here.  Maybe
>it would be nice if we could try adopting the "old" IETF model here,
>in trying to make headway in the XML-based Configuration arena.
>
>That is, maybe the above draft could be published as an Individual
>Submission, either with Informational status or Experimental status.
>Ditto for any other specific proposals that anyone else wants to make.
>
>And then various folks could implement and operators could experiment
>with this/these proposals.  And then AFTER there is more implementation
>experience and AFTER there is more operator experience, at that point
>MAYBE IETF could actually look into the question of standardising
>*something* in this space.
>
>My main concern is that the past threads on this list have largely
>reflected design-without-experience or abstract "requirements" that
>aren't based on operational experience with any XML-based Configuration
>system.
>
>If we're trying to address an operations issue, which I think we are here,
>then having operators play with implementations and be able to provide feedback
>(before standardising anything) seems like the high probability path to
>operations success.

Thanks for your interest.  Margaret should have pointed out that we
are requesting a BOF at IETF #56 for the purpose of gauging community
interest in pursuing standardization of XMLCONF.

I can't speak for other vendors, but the company I work for is very
interested in standardizing XMLCONF and has near-term plans for
implementing it.  It it important that the specification be detailed
and precise enough to foster multi-vendor deployment and inter-operability.

The primary goal of the BOF (if it happens) will be to gauge
consensus on the path the IETF should take (e.g., do nothing,
start a WG to publish a PS, publish an Informational RFC without
any WG input).  IMO, a standards-track document produced by a WG
offers the best chance of a high-quality specification supported
by lots of vendors and operators.


>Ran
>rja@extremenetworks.com

Andy


>PS:     Presenting any proposals (e.g. this I-D) to operator fora such as
>        RIPE or NANOG or LISA meetings also seems like a good way to collect
>        operator feedback.  And maybe the prospect of providing feedback on
>        the front-end of an IETF WG [1] might be more attractive to some
>        operations folks not currently involved in IETF.
>
>[1] Of course this is just an ad-hoc mailing list, not an IETF WG, for now.
>
>
>
>--
>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/>