Hi, I am not convinced the IETF can be forced to function as if it were a dev-group in some corporation. This is a volunteer organization so usually solution proposals come from people who have created a solution and they want the WG to standardize it.
Andy On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > Andy, > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:41:59AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > At some point the WG needs to agree on normative text instead of > iterating > > on requirements forever. > > IMO, it would be in I2RS's best interests if netconf/netmod provided drafts > in appropriately normative language covering I2RS requirements. However, > we've been in a pathological cycle of: > "We don't understand, please give us requirements" > "We don't understand your requirements" > "You provided examples with your requirements that appear to be attempts to > change our protocol - don't do that." > > The most recent revised-datastore draft would be a good place to document > where netmod(/netconf) believes ephemeral datastores (if that's the > instantiation) could live, and also how ephemeral configuration state could > interact with candidate, startup and running configuration. > > yang-push covers much of our desired pub-sub behavior. (Yay!) > > Discussion is required for how to tag security considerations impacting > transport into the yang model, in particular for notification. > > Proposals for secondary identity and priority are also needed. > > -- Jeff >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
