[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: DO we really need a session at IETF71?
Hi Balazs
inline
Bert Wijnen
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Balazs Lengyel [mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com]
> Verzonden: maandag 28 januari 2008 16:56
> Aan: Bert Wijnen
> CC: Netconf
> Onderwerp: Re: DO we really need a session at IETF71?
>
>
> Hello Bert,
> We are missing the schema discovery draft. It is not merged into
> the monitoring draft as I see it.
Yep I just reviewed quickly and am also not sure if/how it got
merged. So hopefully mark and Sharon can explain what is going on.
We (the WG chairs) had asked for the merged document.
> I have put in comments for the monitoring draft, and have read
> the TLS one which is OK.
Thanks.
> I will shortly publish a 01 version of the partial-locking draft
>
Great. At the other hand, just publishing it to address my admin/editorial
comments is not needed. What we need is to try and get the WHOLE WG involved
and get theire review. We MUST find out (well before IETF71) if there
are any serious/controverisal issues that we need to discuss f2f.
Once we have more comment, then it is timely enough (in my view) to do
a new revision. But I won;t stop you if you have to cycles to do one
sooner.
> - I think most/many of the netconf people are putting their
> energies into the modeling work.
> So please PUSH!!!! for a decision there.
>
That work is also very important, and indeed we need a decision at
the updoming IETF on a direction and a base to work from.
Nevertheless, here in the NETCONF WG, we MUST also try to make progress
and try to meet our milestones that we more or less committed to.
As WG chairs Mehmet and I are responsible to focus (here) on the
NETCONF chartered tasks and to make sure we have a fruitfull session
at IETF71 on the NETCONF chartered WG work items. That is what we
are trying to push for with our somewhat hars message.
Hope you understand.
Bert
> Balazs
>
>
>
> Bert Wijnen wrote:
> > Dear WG members,
> >
> > As you know, we have requested a session slot for IETF71. But
> > in order for such a session to be usefull, we MUST prepare.
> >
> > We now have (for more than 10 days already) revision 00
> > documents for all of our currently 3 charterd WG work items.
> > Namely:
> >
> > Title : NETCONF Monitoring Schema
> > Author(s) : M. Scott, S. Chisholm
> > Filename : draft-ietf-netconf-monitoring-00.txt
> > Pages : 14
> > Date : 2008-1-15
> >
> > Title : Partial Lock RPC for NETCONF
> > Author(s) : B. Lengyel, M. Bjorklund
> > Filename : draft-ietf-netconf-partial-lock-00.txt
> > Pages : 11
> > Date : 2008-01-07
> >
> > Title : NETCONF over TLS
> > Author(s) : M. Badra
> > Filename : draft-ietf-netconf-tls-00.txt
> > Pages : 9
> > Date : 2008-01-01
> >
> > Not much commenting and/or discussion has taken place on our
> > mailing list yet. And that is NOT GOOD. We MUST review and
> > then comment/discuss these documents on our WG mailing list.
> >
> > We need to know:
> >
> > - are enough people reading/reviewing the documents
> > in other words, does the WG really care?
> > - what do people think about the documents.
> > don't assume that we as WG chairs will assume that silence
> > means consent or agreement. If you like it, pls state so
> > with an email to the mailing list that says something aka:
> > - I reviewed the document and it is in GOOD SHAPE.
> > Please publish asap.
> > - I reviewed (or read) the document and I like it
> > - I reviewed (or read) the document and I did not see any
> > fatal problems or things that I cannot agree with
> > - Of course, if you see any open gaps, any problems, or things
> > that you think could be done better, then PLEASE POST those
> > rather sooner than later. It will help some discussion on
> > the mailing list. Hopefully we can solve the issues and
> > address the concerns on the list and come to convergence.
> > - Those issues that we seem to not be able to find a solution
> > for, or for which we do not come to convergence, ONLY THOSE
> > deserve serious face to face time at the upcoming IETF meeting.
> > - We do NOT WANT just presentations or tutorials. We want serious
> > discussion of open and/or controversial issues. But we all need
> > to prepare for that.
> >
> > It may sound harsh, but if we do not see any serious discussion
> > or signs of review on the WG mailing list, then it seems better
> > to cancel our session at the upconing IETF.
> >
> > Bert and Mehmet
> >
> >
> > --
> > to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
> > the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> > archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>
>
> --
> Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
> TSP System Manager
> ECN: 831 7320 Fax: +36 1 4377792
> Tel: +36-1-437-7320 email: Balazs.Lengyel@ericsson.com
>
--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>