hi
Actually, my remembrance is that a number of items were dropped solely as a
scoping exercise. Note because they were not felt to be achievable or
necessary.
If there is working group consensus to take on additional work and the AD is
sufficiently convinced of its value and achievability, are we then all on
board?
Just a note that the current Netmod work provides a framework to define
content but does not actually define any content.
Sharon
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf@andybierman.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 12:19 PM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:5K50:EXCH]
Cc: netconf
Subject: Re: no NETCONF WG meeting planned for Paris
Sharon Chisholm wrote:
hi
So, as I indicated in Minneapolis, I plan two presentations into the
Paris meeting. One on the Netmod work proposing that gets added to the
charter and another on asynchronous messaging with a similar
objectives. The technical work is being progressed as we speak.
Are you suggesting that you would like to see the proposed updated
charter before Paris?
Simon and I both agree that the NETCONF WG should concentrate on finishing
the 1.0 document set and then take a little break -- like until the RFCs are
actually published -- before charging ahead with more features. We would
like to make sure the IESG approves the work we've done so far before
building on that work. A little time for implementation, inter-operability
testing, and deployment would be a good idea as well.
Before this new work, we would of course need to update the WG charter, and
to do that, we need consensus on that charter. Neither Simon or myself is
eager to take on the NETMOD work in its current form. The deferred protocol
features like notifications can be started if there if WG
consensus.
Of course, every feature on that list is there because it is difficult,
contentious,
and the WG couldn't reach agreement on it. I'm not convinced we will do any
better the second time around. (Prove me wrong -- write a great draft that
wins the WG over.) Solution proposals full of the same holes as the first
time around aren't going to become WG drafts just because they exist.
More on NETMOD: My preference is for NETCONF to be content-neutral,
like the document claims. I would like to see other SDOs and even a
NETMOD
WG in the IETF define mappings between their data modeling constructs and
the NETCONF protocol (operations and transaction model). I do not think
a one-size-fits-all solution will ever work, or that the first cut at a
data modeling
standard will be long-lasting. Personally, I haven't seen anything yet
that really
removes enough complexity to be interesting, but I'm confident in the
next few
years somebody will figure it all out.
Sharon
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 12:08 PM
To: netconf
Subject: no NETCONF WG meeting planned for Paris
Hi,
At this time, it appears all WG milestones will be completed before the
next IETF, so there are no plans to hold a NETCONF WG meeting at the
Paris IETF.
We understand that some people want to continue adding features to the
protocol and/or work on standard data models, but this work would need
to be chartered first -- a process that has not been started, and not
likely to be completed before the next IETF.
Andy and Simon
--
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/>
--
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/>
--
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/>