Randy Presuhn wrote: > Hi - > >> From: "Eric Rescorla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <ietf@ietf.org>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:10 AM >> Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod) > ... >> Accordingly, if this WG is to be formed, the entire section (and >> corresponding milestones) which specifies the technology needs to be >> removed. Rather, the first work item should be to select a technical >> approach. > ... > > I think the simplest answer would be to simply publish the work that's already > been done and not bother with the IETF. There is simply no value in wasting > electrons on battles like this. Sure, some opportunities for technological > refinement and building a stronger community consensus migh tbe lost, but > that might be a small price to pay in comparison to the time and energy > required for all this pointless hoop-jumping. Particularly since the > proposed/ > draft/standard distinction has become so meaningless, it makes more > sense to just publish the spec and ignore the peanut gallery. >
This 'simple' approach doesn't move standardized network configuration along at all, so it is not my first choice. IMO, there is strong community consensus for the charter as it is currently written. There are several technical approaches, such as 'continue to write data models in XSD' which are technically viable, but have no community consensus at all. I don't think a formal WG process is needed to determine that the strongest consensus exists for the approach currently outlined in the charter. The 15 people on the design team represented a wide cross section of those actually interested in this work. I am among the 10 - 15 people who were not involved in the design team, but agree with the charter. That seems like a lot of consensus for this technical approach. > Randy Andy _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
