[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Decision on NETCONF charter extensions
I have repeatedly stated my opinion, based also on what we hear from our
customers that in the absence of a standard data model the NETCONF work
is not complete, and cannot offer the level of interoperability that is
expected from an IETF protocol. I believe that the WG chairs are raising
the threshold at an level that is unprecedented high in the IETF asking
for data modeling specifications to be written and prototype
implementations be shown as a condition for the work being chartered. I
respectfully disagree with this position, and I believe that the SMIng
example that they are bringing as the precedent to avoid does not apply,
because SMIng was a refinement, actually a third version of the SMI for
SNMP, long after SNMP had a chance to reach standard interoperability
because both the protocol and the data model were defined from the
start. To use a aeronautics metaphor, while SMIng may have been a raise
in altitude from 30,000 to 39,000 feet NETCONF is not even given a
chance to take off in the absence of a standard data model.
Regards,
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sharon Chisholm
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 6:23 PM
> To: netconf
> Subject: RE: Decision on NETCONF charter extensions
>
> hi
>
> Actually, I don't believe we were done defining the charter
> updates either. I had planed one more rewrite after Paris
> before submitting again. But that likely doesn't have much
> bearing on this discussion, so let me ask a question and make
> a couple points.
>
> Netconf Events does not require an extension to the charter.
> Should we assume then that work is still a candidate for
> short term inclusion in the charter?
>
> Those of us working on various bits of netconf phase 2 still
> feel the current gaps are critical to be addressed and will
> continue to progress that work to support our Netconf
> implementations. Please let me know if you are interested in
> participating in discussions.
>
> I have heard a lot of offline support for the netconf phase 2
> work, but people have not echoed that support to the mailing
> list. This understandably gets interpreted badly by the chairs.
>
> Just a note though that from the bakeoff we saw that
> ambiguities in the data model specification framework led to
> non-interoperable implementations. Also note that there was
> at least one operator who strongly supported Netconf Events
> in the face to face meeting in Paris.
>
> Sharon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 11:37 AM
> To: netconf
> Subject: Decision on NETCONF charter extensions
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Simon and I have been discussing the status of the WG with
> our ADs. The four of us do not believe that the charter
> extension proposals presented to date are sufficiently
> complete, or widely accepted by the WG, to justify new
> NETCONF work at this time.
>
> As Bert stated at the WG meeting in Paris, the following
> goals have much higher priority:
> - getting more implementations of the current document set
> - getting a show of buy-in from operators that they are
> indeed playing/testing with implementations
> - getting a nod/ack from operators that the protocol
> makes sense and will be used
>
> We need to see operator buy-in before we go too far down this
> path, and end up in the same situation as we ended up with
> SNMP. W.r.t. new work by this WG, the ADs would like to see
> the proponents of such new work:
>
> - work hard on implementations of the current specs
> - show prototypes of implementations of the suggested
> enhancements
> - work hard on initial data modeling specs and show that
> there is convergence in thinking before we charter it.
> (remember the SMIng efforts? we do not want to end
> up in the same deadlock)
> - show prototype implementations of such data modeling work
> so we get a feel of what it is.
>
> For all of the above, get operators to show interest and buy-in.
>
>
> 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/>