[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-chisholm-netconf-model-03.txt

Sharon Chisholm wrote:

hi

I can send a proposed update to the netconf charter to include both the
Framework for content document as well as the netconf event document. Back
in Minneapolis the working group expressed interest in hearing more about
these works and we said we would discuss them in Paris. A lot of interest
was also expressed outside the formal meeting. Note that these are not the
only two bits of work coming down the pipe.



You can post any relevant email to the WG mailing list at any time.


I can understand if perhaps the chairs don't want to travel to Paris, so we
can hold a BOF instead if necessary, but ideally there should be a working
group meeting.



There are several reason I don't want the WG to meet at the next IETF:

1 - There needs to be WG consensus on specific charter extension text;
We have neither at this time. (Simon and I need to focus on the
IESG review and publication process for the 1.0 drafts in the near-term,
but WG members can propose text now.)
2 - The I-D draft-chisholm-netconf-model-02 was posted May 9, but so far
I have not seen any comments on either NETCONF or NETMOD lists.
3 - There have not been any NETCONF extension proposals to date.
4 - A short pause in WG activity to allow the 1.0 work to be published,
implemented, and debugged is a good idea.
5 - Travel costs are important to several WG members. A couple people
commented to me in Washington that the 'official' WG meeting was only
15 minutes, and we should have just used the mailing list instead.
By the next IETF, all WG documents will be in IESG review.
6 - I am quite skeptical that the lack of a 2.5 hour meeting in August should
be the reason there is no mailing list and I-D submission activity now.
7 -A bunch of unchartered individual I-Ds submitted at the last minute aren't
going to get a decent review at the meeting anyway. We aren't likely to
agree on functional requirements by debating solution proposals anyway.

Sharon



Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf@andybierman.com] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:29 AM
To: Phil Shafer
Cc: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:5K50:EXCH]; netconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-chisholm-netconf-model-03.txt


Phil Shafer wrote:



"Sharon Chisholm" writes:




I'm cross-posting since the plan is to discuss this, or an update of this draft, in the Paris netconf meeting.




I didn't thing they was a Paris netconf meeting. Didn't Andy say we didn't need one so he wasn't asking for one?





correct -- there is no NETCONF WG meeting in Paris.
Perhaps Bert will grant a 2nd NETMOD BOF if there
is enough interest.

I think the next step for the WG should be to discuss
the details of any charter extensions on the mailing list.
I'm not so sure there is widespread agreement on the
urgency and functional requirements of new features.



Thanks,
Phil





Andy



--
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/>