How should we deal with experimental netconf work?

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Hi,

I have an idea that may help those in the WG that believe
standards based on real-world solutions are not that important.
I have to clear it with Simon and the ADs first, but here goes...

People with ideas for extensions should (hopefully) implement them, write
them up in an Internet Draft, and propose them to the WG.

We have a "netconf base" URI. 
We can also have a "netconf experimental" URI.
(Yes, I know SMI has this already.  We need it for the same reason.)

The WG can then decide on new proposals:
 1)  no thanks
 2) come back later with more details
 3) develop it as Experimental first (decide on standard later)
 4) charter it and develop it as a Proposed Standard

This experimental branch (like in MIBs) would not be stable
like a standard, but it is better than a vendor extension.
Competitors in the same market will be reluctant to implement
each other's proprietary extensions, but they will be able to
agree in a WG to implement something as a "netconf experimental" extension.

The bar for Experimental should be much lower than for Proposed Standard,
in terms of initial proposal deployment, WG involvement and IESG review.

Comments?

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/>