RE: Interim attendance survey [data model first]

["McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>]

Tom Petch wrote on 26 March at 2:34 PM:
> 
> 2) but could become a 3) if the meeting was somewhere 
> convenient like London,
> UK.
> 
> I think it matters but not as much as getting the current XML 
> straight, which
> seems to be taking an inordinate amount of effort, after 
> which I would give
> higher priority to the data model.
> 
> Tom Petch

I agree with David Perkins - notifications, subscriptions,
event aggregation, and event filtering are fascinating
topics.

However, I fail to see any compelling reason for NetConf
to reinvent the wheel once again and create yet another
notification protocol.

Standard data model is _far_ more important, IMHO.

I still maintain that "merge this blob with that blob" is
a wildly underspecified operation - so far, NetConf seems
to have provided the substrate for a number of entirely
vendor proprietary implementations that do not _by_design_
interoperate in any meaningful way - I'm astounded that
the IESG thought it was OK to invent yet another darned
configuration protocol with no standard data model(s).

Cheers,
- Ira


Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.2/294 - Release Date: 3/27/2006
 

--
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/>