>>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:45:02 -0700, Eric Rescorla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> said:
ER> I remain concerned that this is the wrong technical approach; it ER> appears to me to be unnecessary and overcomplicated. However, it's ER> clear that's a minority opinion, so I'll drop my objection to this ER> charter. At the risk of getting things thrown at me: 1) I too actually have issues with the YANG proposal as it stands. 2) But I do think it's a slightly better starting place than the other proposals, and thus don't take issue with letting the WG start there. In particular, I strongly believe (and said this at a mic) that the result has to optimized for people that don't understand complex languages like with hard to read syntaxes like XSD, etc. I think a different language, like YANG, is necessary as the existing languages simply don't meet that goal. YANG does meet this goal better than others but I don't think it goes far enough. But I don't think the creation of the working group will mean changes can't be made to the results of a design team. Generically speaking, a design team is tasked with doing the best they can but it is still up to working group consensus to say "that'll do" or "that'll do with these modifications". -- Wes Hardaker Sparta, Inc. _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
