Re: I-D ACTION:draft-kulkarni-netconf-subagent-prot-00.txt

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>
> To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
> Cc: "Andy Bierman" <ietf@andybierman.com>; "Martin Bjorklund" <mbj@tail-f.com>; <bwijnen@lucent.com>; <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 1:12 AM
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-kulkarni-netconf-subagent-prot-00.txt
...
> A great deal of standardization work seems to be related to good
> timing and I am not sure AgentX is an example we can be proud of in
> terms of good timing.
...

Indeed.  There was an incredible amount of well-entrenched political
opposition to pursuing any kind of subagent work, and lots of
disingenuous FUD.  Old-timers will recall the "dogs of a feather"
held in San Jose outside IETF auspices because
those in power at the time would not permit a BoF.

In the case of netconf, until there's an instance naming architecture
and we have some idea what data models are going to look like, I
think we'll just have to assume that netconf implementations will be
totally monolithic, despite all the limitations that that will entail for
large, complex, multi-vendor or dynamic systems.  With the very
limited applicability envisioned for netconf, this might not be a problem.

Randy


--
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/>