> On 22 Dec 2015, at 16:43, Nadeau Thomas <tnad...@lucidvision.com> wrote: > >> >> On Dec 22, 2015:10:36 AM, at 10:36 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: >> >> >>> On 22 Dec 2015, at 16:22, Nadeau Thomas <tnad...@lucidvision.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The action I am trying to tease out of this thread is how do we take >>> action >>> going forward? There are many who are saying (and doing) what you say >>> below; however, >> >> This should IMO be OK. One thing that might help avoid unnecessary >> duplication of work is to keep and up-to-date directory, where everybody >> could register their modules. Everything else could be a bottom-up process. >> >> Lada > > That has been discussed on a separate thread. I think the best idea > right now is to > do something in IANA for a module namespace/ID registry but Benoit has asked > us to write > up a draft with some ideas.
I think I don't even need IANA registration. Lada > > —Tom > > >> >>> there are related discussions on the RFC6020 update to the module update >>> rules >>> claiming that we should only focus on IETF-realted modules. Do you see the >>> catch-22 >>> I am trying to make clear here? The other issue is the simple process for >>> those modules >>> that are developed here. Should we move them all to an external model, >>> should we >>> amend the IETF’s processes to accommodate rapid model development and >>> iteration? >>> >>> —Tom >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 22, 2015:8:39 AM, at 8:39 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 22 Dec 2015, at 14:06, Nadeau Thomas <tnad...@lucidvision.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [moving the thread to its own discussion.] >>>>> >>>>>> This is a blocking factor that people are not considering: The RFC >>>>>> process the >>>>>> IETF has in place is not suitable for rapid/modern/canonical model >>>>>> development. It will >>>>>> be difficult for the IESG review process to scale to even a couple >>>>>> models during any given >>>>>> telechat period given the state of the document review/approval process. >>>>>> How do we >>>>>> envision the IESG reviewing 250+ models (and growing)? Besides the >>>>>> initial RFC version, >>>>>> rapid refresh/update of models has the same issues. >>>>> >>>>> I don't disagree, but I propose that we stick to the oper state >>>>> discussion in this email thread. >>>> >>>> I agree with Tom. I personally decided not to work on any new module in >>>> the IETF any time soon. I am currently working on a number of modules >>>> related to DNS, they will be freely available for review and use by >>>> everybody, but I don't want to go through a similar process as with >>>> ietf-routing, and then be stymied by the update rules. >>>> >>>> Lada >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, Benoit >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> netmod mailing list >>>>> netmod@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs >>>> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs >> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
