Jamal,
Here are two criteria to be considered:
1. technical
2. commercial/business
We can discuss pros and cons for both, but have to state that from business
perspective for Juniper going with RESTCONF/YANG make more sense. We already
built the Junos model in YANG and
have or are in process of building needed tools. Same goes for RESTCONF. We
have NETCONF implemented in Junos and are working on RESTCONF implementation.
Many carriers adopted or are adopting NETCONF/YANG, are looking into RESTCONF
as well, so this looks like a low hanging fruit from business perspective.
Looking at technical aspect, unless there is a very compelling reason (and
there might be, but I'm not aware of it), don't see reason to switch from
RESTCONF and YANG.
We can find out down the line that RESTCONF/YANG was the wrong way to go, but
that can be always changed. From my perspective it looks right today.
Just to be clear, I vote for RESTCONF/YANG adoption for i2rs.
Dean
On Apr 18, 2014, at 7:27 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <h...@mojatatu.com> wrote:
> Ok, since nobody is saying anything i'll bite.
> How would you like for this discussion to proceed?
>
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Edward Crabbe <e...@google.com> wrote:
>> Dear I2RSers,
>>
>> At the last I2RS WG meeting there was a great deal of conversation
>> regarding selection of both modeling language and underlying transport
>> protocol. Consensus at the time was to make use of Yang and (NetConf or
>> RestConf) (unclear).
>>
>
> And i believe the view, as correctly presented by you, is for folks to go back
> and make educated decisions by actually getting knowledgeable about
> the different views presented. "Consensus" that you described above
> to me looked like a pageant popularity contest not based on anything
> technical ("who likes contestant in the blue shirt? please cheer for them").
>
> In my opinion i dont think the requirements are clear.
>
> Will that get the crickets stop chirping?
>
> cheers,
> jamal
>
>> Before coming to a final consensus, we'd like to give people adequate time
>> to review source material, marshall arguments and discuss on the mailing
>> list. To this end, we're asking that interested parties do just this over
>> the course of the next ~two weeks. Following that period, on 4/28, we'll be
>> initiating a consensus call that will last an additional two weeks, with the
>> aim of converging modeling language / protocol by Friday, 5/9.
>>
>> The consensus call should also generate proposals for any material changes
>> required to the underlying protocols. These proposals in turn will form the
>> basis for a later draft including gap analysis and said changes. Those
>> strongly in favor of one protocol over another should be prepared to
>> contribute to this analysis.
>>
>>
>> best,
>>
>> -ed
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> i2rs mailing list
>> i2rs@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> i2rs@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>
>
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
i2rs@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
