RE: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Hi Dave, Good questions. Let me see if I can answer some of them. For perspective, I have not been involved in the developoment of any of the proposed technical directions, but I have been a general technical commentator with 16 years of IETF NM experience ;-) > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Dave Crocker > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:04 AM > To: Eric Rescorla > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod) > > > > Eric Rescorla wrote: > > Which is why it is now returned to the broader community for > > additional perspectives from those not already committed to a > > particular path Dave, my impression of your questions is that "they" means the "broader community" - those not already committed to a particular path - that EKR references. I will answer your questions from that perspective. > > > Are they committed to doing the work? I believe the answer to this is yes. The Netconf community raised the potential need for a new data modeling language because XSD was too human-unfriendly, and both XSD and RNG lacked features needed for network management purposes. We have performed multiple comparison exercises between XSD and RNG (e.g., modeling Diffserv configuration), and all have fallen somewhat short in terms of expressing the things the OPS area feels are important to express, based on 20 years of experience with SNMP and SNMPCONF and COPS-PR, and based on experience with CLI-based configuration, and operator feedback about configuration requirements exprsessed during the IAB Network Management Workshop in 2002 an dthe subsequent "world tour" of NANOG, RIPE, and other operators' groups. People from the broader community (especially the APPS area) with experience in XSD and RNG came forth and prepared multiple concrete proposals to compare data modeling language approaches. All of these previous efforts have tried to be inclusive of the broader community, but many have been unofficial meetings, so the broader community may have been under-represented in some of these comparisons, but XSD and RNG have been prominent proposals. After multiple comparisons, the rough consensus of those involved was that the results remained human-unfriendly, especially the XSD format, and efforts at producing XSD schemas in WG documents had real difficulties producing valid XSD. While RNG was more human-friendly, it still was less human-friendly than desired. Unfortunately, despite going to this effort, the CANMOD BOF was prevented from actually comparing the various concrete proposals (the "beauty contest"), which would have shown XSD versus RNG versus YANG, relative to the stated requirements for network management purposes. > > Do they have their own constituency? > The supporters of XSD have their own constituency. The supporters of RNG have their own constituency. The supporters of the YANG proposal have their constituency. And there are constituencies for other proposals that have not been widely accepted. Folowing a proposal for a BOF, the APPS area and some IAB members wanted some extra input on the need for a data modeling language. A design team composed of members of the OPS community and the APPS community was created to document a set of requirements. The OPS community had already been through this exercise multiple times already, as documented in multiple existing RFCs on requirementsa for configuration, and new requirements were allowed to be added to the existing requirmeents by represntatives of the various consistuencies. It was decided by the OPS ADs that concrete proposals should be prepared for presentation and comparison at a BOF to compare alternatice approaches. Multiple proposals were prepared, including proposals from OPS area and APPS area people. These proposals were prepared for a "beauty contest" becauser there was strong aoncensus amongst the various constituencies that we needed a data modeling language, and some felt that the existing XML-based schema languages might be sufficient. The proposals, however, reflected the fact that the existing languages fell short when trying to represent information necessary for network management **based on operator input**. Existing XML-based tools would be unable to validate the data models without having specfic extensions provided through annotations, and requiring modifications to existing tools to process those annotations. At the CANMOD BOF, the "beauty contest" between proposals was not allowed to be held, because certain members of the "broader community" insisted that the question of whether the existing languages could suffice be discussed even further, even though there was strong consensus from the OPS community (and recently from the APPS community) that the existing schema languages fall short of the requirements for network management data modeling. Following the CANMOD BOF, the constituencies
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Hi - > From: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Eric Rescorla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:03 PM > Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod) ... > Are they committed to doing the work? The bulk of the work has been done (or close to it) for quite some time. Ideally, it would have been done *before* the NETCONF protocol was cast in concrete, but the NETCONF working group was not allowed to define a modeling approach before finishing a protocol. Without data models, the protocol is useless. Consequently, there are already numerous vendor-specific ways of handling modeling, and even multiple approaches showing up some companies. Not good. > Do they have their own constituency? All the major players in the devlopment of the NETCONF protocol, as far as I know. > Since the topic is not new, where have they been and why have they not > developed their own group consensus? Previous requests for a BOF like the one held in Philadelphia were denied. The various design teams have considerable common ground, and the consensus of the folks who are actually doing work is in my opinion pretty accurately reflected in the charter proposal. > Rather than "perspectives" where are the technical concerns that Bert asked > about? As I see it, the key technical issues are these: 1) Is there a need for a domain-specific language for network configuration management data modeling? Experience in the field gives an unequivocal "yes". GDMO, SMI, and CIM are a few examples of how folks have dealt with the shortcomings of the general-purpose tools available over the years. General-purpose modeling languages are both too much and too little, particularly with regard to issues of inter-version compatibility of models and interoperability. Even if a language can represent an important semantic, there's still the question of whether that particular solution is compact and intuitive. With some, to represent common constraints like uniqueness the designer had to resort to the equivalent of assembler language. 2) Does it make sense to use an XML-based syntax for the "human-friendly" representation of data models? For "industrial-strength" models the answer becomes more and more "no" as the model becomes larger and more semantically rich. This is not a question of expressive power. It's a question of providing a way to support development of *readable* standardized data models for NETCONF. Forgive my impatience. We went through this same debate twenty years ago regarding ASN.1 and GDMO, and only slightly later in de-coupling SNMP SMI from ASN.1 The acronyms may have changed, but the answers haven't. Randy ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Eric Rescorla wrote: > Which is why it is now returned to the broader community for > additional perspectives from those not already committed to a > particular path Are they committed to doing the work? Do they have their own constituency? Since the topic is not new, where have they been and why have they not developed their own group consensus? Rather than "perspectives" where are the technical concerns that Bert asked about? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:17:47 -0600, Randy Presuhn wrote: > Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology > choices at the CANMOD BOF. Our original proposal for consensus > hums included getting a of sense of preferences among the various > proposals. We were told we could *not* ask these questions, for fear > of upsetting Eric Rescorla. Well, it's certainly true that the terms--agreed to by the IESG and the IAB--on which the BOF were held were that there not be a beauty contest at the BOF but that there first be a showing that there was consensus to do work in this area at all. I'm certainly willing to cop to being one of the people who argued for that, but I was far from the only one. If you want to blame me for that, go ahead. In any case, now that consensus to do *something* has been established it is the appropriate time to have discussion on the technology. I certainly never imagined that just because there weren't hums taken in PHL that that meant no hums would ever be taken. > (It's unclear to me why his perspectives > on configuration management information models should be subject to > special consideration, while the folk who have been doing > active work and real products in this area over the last two decades > are largely ignored.) Given that the BOF was in fact held and the WG is now being proposed, "largely ignored" isn't quite the way I would characterize the situation. -Ekr ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Hi - Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology choices at the CANMOD BOF. Our original proposal for consensus hums included getting a of sense of preferences among the various proposals. We were told we could *not* ask these questions, for fear of upsetting Eric Rescorla. (It's unclear to me why his perspectives on configuration management information models should be subject to special consideration, while the folk who have been doing active work and real products in this area over the last two decades are largely ignored.) The people from the various design teams put a great deal of time and energy into understanding each others' proposals and the tradeoffs. The standardazition of a modeling environment for NECONF should have been completed literally five years ago. The notion that further delay is desirable is simply silly. That said, I do agree with the others regarding the charter proposal. While it's probably not exactly what anyone wanted, it does represent something just about everyone who is actually doing work in this area could not just live with, but actually support. Randy ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IETF 74 Venue Selected
The IAOC is pleased to announce San Francisco as the site for IETF 74 from 22 March - 27 March 2009. The IETF last met in the city in 2003 at IETF 56. Those who may be interested in hosting can find information at http://iaoc.ietf.org/meetings.html and by contacting Drew Dvorshak at [EMAIL PROTECTED] While IETF 72 in Dublin seems like it's months away, the hotel is half booked already. You can still make reservations here: http://www.citywesthotel.com/site/ietf.aspx Registration and Letters of Invitation can be obtained here: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/72/ For more about Dublin, you can visit the Alcatel-Lucent's IETF 72 Host page at: http://ietf72.alcatel-lucent.com/ See you in Dublin! Ray Pelletier IETF Administrative Director ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:16:02 +0200, Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote: > instead of discussing if there was consensus AT THE BOF > (we all know that at this point in time we DO have > consensus between all the interested WORKERS in this space, > albeit that the current consensus was arrived at in further > (smaller) meetings, in extensive DT work after the IETF and > again after review on NGO list). Which is why it is now returned to the broader community for additional perspectives from those not already committed to a particular path > I propose that you list (again) your (technical) objections > to the the current proposal. Sure. Based on my knowledge of modelling/protocol description languages, the techniques that Rohan described based on RNG and Schematron seemed to me quite adequate to get the job done and the relatively large baggage introduced by defining another language (YANG) which is then translated into them seems wholly unnecessary. I appreciate that some people believe that YANG is more expressive and better suited for this particular purpose, but I didn't see any really convincing arguments of that (I certainly don't find the arguments in F.2 of draft-bjorklund-netconf-yang dispositive). Given what I know of the complexity of designing such languages, and of their ultimate limitations and pitfalls, this seems like a bad technical tradeoff. > If all you can tell us is that > we need to spend just more cycles on re-hashing the pros > and cons of many possible approaches, then I do not > see the usefulness of that discussion and with become > silent and leave your opion as one input to the IESG for > their decision making process. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. This is precisely the technical discussion that needs to happen in a public forum, not on some design team and then presented as a fait accompli. That said, I think I've stated my position as best I can and that while I understand yours, you and I just disagree about what the IESG should do, so I'll take your advice to become silent at this point. -Ekr ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Hi all, On Tuesday 22 April 2008 23.14.03 Andy Bierman wrote: > 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. Absolutely. Well said. David ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Well said Andy. And I support the charter as well! Bert Wijnen > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Andy > Bierman > Verzonden: dinsdag 22 april 2008 23:14 > Aan: Randy Presuhn > CC: ietf@ietf.org > Onderwerp: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod) > > > Randy Presuhn wrote: > > Hi - > > > >> From: "Eric Rescorla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: ; <[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 > ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Eric, instead of discussing if there was consensus AT THE BOF (we all know that at this point in time we DO have consensus between all the interested WORKERS in this space, albeit that the current consensus was arrived at in further (smaller) meetings, in extensive DT work after the IETF and again after review on NGO list). I propose that you list (again) your (technical) objections to the the current proposal. If all you can tell us is that we need to spend just more cycles on re-hashing the pros and cons of many possible approaches, then I do not see the usefulness of that discussion and with become silent and leave your opion as one input to the IESG for their decision making process. Bert Wijnen > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Eric > Rescorla > Verzonden: dinsdag 22 april 2008 23:14 > Aan: David Partain > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org > Onderwerp: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod) > > > At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:00:53 +0200, > David Partain wrote: > > > > Greetings, > > > > On Tuesday 22 April 2008 18.10.10 Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > I object to the formation of this WG with this charter. > > > > For those who haven't been involved in the discussions to date, > Eric has > > objected to this work from the very beginning, as far back as > the first > > attempt to get a BOF and has continued to object since that > time. As such, > > I'm not surprised that he objects now. > > Of course, since the issues I was concerned about from the very > beginning remain. > > > > > While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest > > > in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical > > > direction. > > > > Not surprisingly, I disagree. > > Well, it's not really like this is a matter of opinion, since > the minutes are pretty clear that no consensus calls on the > choice of technology were taken, only that some work > in this area should move forward: > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/minutes/canmod.txt > > > > The O&M community in the IETF has been talking about this > specific topic for a > > long time, both in official and unofficial settings. We've had > many hours of > > meetings where people from all various viewpoints have had > hashed out their > > differences. This all culminated during the last IETF in a > rather strong > > sense of consensus amongst those most interested in this work > that it's time > > to stop talking and move forward, and that YANG was the best > way to do that. > > No, not everyone agreed, but we DO have rough consensus in the > O&M community > > and with the APPS area people who were involved that this was a > reasonable > > approach forward. > > > > So, what about this consensus thing? > > > > Sometimes ADs have to make a call, and my take is that Dan & > Ron did so. They > > asked people representing ALL of the proposals to work on a > proposal for a > > charter. We spent a great many cycles doing exactly that. All of the > > proposals that you saw presented at the CANMOD BOF were very > active in the > > charter proposal discussions and the result is the consensus of > all of those > > people. No one got exactly what they wanted, but I think > everyone felt is > > was a reasonable way forward. So, we have consensus amongst > the various > > proposals' authors. > > The sum of all this verbiage is that, precisely as I said, there > wasn't consensus at the BOF, but that there was some set of rump > meetings where this compromise was hashed out. > > -Ekr > > > ___ > IETF mailing list > IETF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:10:53 +0200, Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote: > > W.r.t. > > All this is great stuff, but it all happened after the BOF, so > > you can't reasonably claim that it represents BOF consensus. > > And since BOFs are our primary mechanism for open, cross area > > assessment for WG formation, I don't think it's accurate to suggest > > that this is anywhere as near as open as actually having the > > discussion in the BOF and gettting consensus, nor is it a substitute > > for that. > > > > I do not think that forming a WG MANDATES a BOF. > Several WGs have been formed (in the past) without a BOF. > > So pls do not depict a story as if a BOF is the only way how we > reach consensus in IETF on teh question of forming a WG or not. Yes, but when you have a BOF which doesn't come to consensus on a technical direction, which is then shortly followed by a proposed charter which *does* specify a technical direction, I think that's a somewhat different story. -Ekr ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Randy Presuhn wrote: > Hi - > >> From: "Eric Rescorla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: ; <[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
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 23.14.01 Eric Rescorla wrote: > The sum of all this verbiage is that, precisely as I said, there > wasn't consensus at the BOF, but that there was some set of rump > meetings where this compromise was hashed out. Greetings, And what will be gained by forcing us to jump through more hoops? You seem to dismiss the consensus because it didn't happen the way you think it should. How does it make it less the consensus? Cheers, David ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
W.r.t. > All this is great stuff, but it all happened after the BOF, so > you can't reasonably claim that it represents BOF consensus. > And since BOFs are our primary mechanism for open, cross area > assessment for WG formation, I don't think it's accurate to suggest > that this is anywhere as near as open as actually having the > discussion in the BOF and gettting consensus, nor is it a substitute > for that. > I do not think that forming a WG MANDATES a BOF. Several WGs have been formed (in the past) without a BOF. So pls do not depict a story as if a BOF is the only way how we reach consensus in IETF on teh question of forming a WG or not. Bert ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 23.06.57 Eric Rescorla wrote: > Perhaps that's true, but I don't see that that's an argument > against actually running an open process rather than declaring > a winner in advance and asking the IETF to ratify it.' Hi, There seems to be an underlying argument that we've somehow been doing cloak & dagger backroom cigar-smokin' stuff. That's not true at all, which I hope my previous response adequately demonstrated. Cheers, David ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:00:53 +0200, David Partain wrote: > > Greetings, > > On Tuesday 22 April 2008 18.10.10 Eric Rescorla wrote: > > I object to the formation of this WG with this charter. > > For those who haven't been involved in the discussions to date, Eric has > objected to this work from the very beginning, as far back as the first > attempt to get a BOF and has continued to object since that time. As such, > I'm not surprised that he objects now. Of course, since the issues I was concerned about from the very beginning remain. > > While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest > > in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical > > direction. > > Not surprisingly, I disagree. Well, it's not really like this is a matter of opinion, since the minutes are pretty clear that no consensus calls on the choice of technology were taken, only that some work in this area should move forward: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/minutes/canmod.txt > The O&M community in the IETF has been talking about this specific topic for > a > long time, both in official and unofficial settings. We've had many hours of > meetings where people from all various viewpoints have had hashed out their > differences. This all culminated during the last IETF in a rather strong > sense of consensus amongst those most interested in this work that it's time > to stop talking and move forward, and that YANG was the best way to do that. > No, not everyone agreed, but we DO have rough consensus in the O&M community > and with the APPS area people who were involved that this was a reasonable > approach forward. > > So, what about this consensus thing? > > Sometimes ADs have to make a call, and my take is that Dan & Ron did so. > They > asked people representing ALL of the proposals to work on a proposal for a > charter. We spent a great many cycles doing exactly that. All of the > proposals that you saw presented at the CANMOD BOF were very active in the > charter proposal discussions and the result is the consensus of all of those > people. No one got exactly what they wanted, but I think everyone felt is > was a reasonable way forward. So, we have consensus amongst the various > proposals' authors. The sum of all this verbiage is that, precisely as I said, there wasn't consensus at the BOF, but that there was some set of rump meetings where this compromise was hashed out. -Ekr ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:14:10 +0200, Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote: > > Eric > > REALLY... Yes, really. > I heard during that BOF that there was consensus to start the work. > I also saw that quite a few liked the YANG proposal, and several > wanted to have mappings to either XSD or RELAX or DSDL. I don't remember any consensus call, hum, or anything else being taken on protocol selection. Rather, I remember there being presentations with questions and minimal discussion. > The smaller meetings that happened after the NOF, included people > from all of the proposals that were on the table, including people > who were in teh Design Team for the requirements. We had > fruitfull discussions that converged onto a single approach. > > We then got all the people from the various proposls together on > the rdcml mailing list (the one that was used by the requirements > design team), and we had a 2 week long discussion with multiple > hundereds of emails and opinions, and again, we converged to a > common and acceptable draft WG charter. > > That draft WG charter was then put to the NGO mailing list were > we had further discussion with various other people. Again we seem > to have consensus. Several non-original-netconf people are on > that mailing list, as a result of the BOF discussions we have had > in the past thow IETF meetings. All this is great stuff, but it all happened after the BOF, so you can't reasonably claim that it represents BOF consensus. And since BOFs are our primary mechanism for open, cross area assessment for WG formation, I don't think it's accurate to suggest that this is anywhere as near as open as actually having the discussion in the BOF and gettting consensus, nor is it a substitute for that. > Further, the change you propose to the WG charter, could be done,. > and then in the first WG session we could declare victory for the > milestone you want. I believe that virtually all of the interested > people were involved in the discussion sofar. So I do not see why > we would need long in a newly formed WG to come to the same > conclusion again. Perhaps that's true, but I don't see that that's an argument against actually running an open process rather than declaring a winner in advance and asking the IETF to ratify it. -Ekr ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Greetings, On Tuesday 22 April 2008 18.10.10 Eric Rescorla wrote: > I object to the formation of this WG with this charter. For those who haven't been involved in the discussions to date, Eric has objected to this work from the very beginning, as far back as the first attempt to get a BOF and has continued to object since that time. As such, I'm not surprised that he objects now. > While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest > in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical > direction. Not surprisingly, I disagree. The O&M community in the IETF has been talking about this specific topic for a long time, both in official and unofficial settings. We've had many hours of meetings where people from all various viewpoints have had hashed out their differences. This all culminated during the last IETF in a rather strong sense of consensus amongst those most interested in this work that it's time to stop talking and move forward, and that YANG was the best way to do that. No, not everyone agreed, but we DO have rough consensus in the O&M community and with the APPS area people who were involved that this was a reasonable approach forward. So, what about this consensus thing? Sometimes ADs have to make a call, and my take is that Dan & Ron did so. They asked people representing ALL of the proposals to work on a proposal for a charter. We spent a great many cycles doing exactly that. All of the proposals that you saw presented at the CANMOD BOF were very active in the charter proposal discussions and the result is the consensus of all of those people. No one got exactly what they wanted, but I think everyone felt is was a reasonable way forward. So, we have consensus amongst the various proposals' authors. Thereafter, the WG charter proposal was published on the NGO (netconf goes on) mailing list, which is a list used for non WG-related discussions but tightly coupled to NETCONF. APPS area people were, of course, also involved. The proposed charter was published well in advance of discussion within the IESG. There were some requests for changes (which happened), but no one jumped up and said, "NO WAY!" So, I certainly think that indicates we have consensus in the NETCONF and APPS communities. Then the IESG discussed the proposed charter and that's where this discussion comes up. Other than your mail, there's been zero (public?) objection to forming this working group. So, what's my point? That everyone who cares about this work and is engaged in it _does_ agree that we have consensus to move forward in this direction, that there has been public scrutiny of the proposal, and that it's time to move on. I am completely convinced that more BOFs are not going to change any of this. It's time to move on and get some work done. Cheers, David ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Hi - > From: "Eric Rescorla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: ; <[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. Randy ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:08:49 -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Eric Rescorla wrote: > > I object to the formation of this WG with this charter. > > > > While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest > > in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical > > direction. Rather, a number of proposals were presented, but no > > strawpoll, hum, or sense of the room was taken, nor, as far as I can > > determine, has there been any such consensus call been taken on any > > list I'm aware of. This wasn't an accident--the BOF was explicitly > > intended only to determine whether some work in this area should > > proceed, not to select a technical approach. > > > > I understand that an approach like this was proposed in the OPSAREA > > meeting by Chris Newman and then that there was a breakout meeting > > where it was discussed further. The minutes don't record any consensus > > call on this combined direction (only strawpolls on the individual > > proposals), and even if such a consensus call had been held, the > > OPSAREA meeting would not be the appropriate place for it: this > > discussion needs to happen in either the BOF (to allow cross-area > > review) or in the designated WG, when it is formed. > > > > > I believe there was consensus in the CANMOD BoF that > the requirements were sufficiently understood, and > the purpose of that BoF had been fulfilled. Agreed. > After the CANMOD BoF, a 15 person design team was formed, > which reached consensus on a technical approach, embodied > in the charter text. There was also unanimous agreement > on the charter, outside the design team (on the NGO mailing list). Neither of these has any formal standing. The precise reason we have BOFs is to have these discussions in person at IETF. > > 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 thought the charter text did specify a technical approach, > which is to utilize YANG as a high-level DML and map YANG > constructs to DSDL and XSD. Yes, that's what I'm objecting to, since that's far from the only technical approach. For instance, one could just use DSDL or XSD without YANG. > Can you explain this work item further? Uh, have a charter that doesn't specify the technical approach and then have an open discussion in the WG meetings followed by selection of a technical approach. Compare, for instance, the process that P2PSIP is engaging in now. -Ekr ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-snell-atompub-bidi (Atom Bidirectional Attribute) to Experimental RFC
I have had a number of conversations with i18n experts on the topic and none have complained about it thus far... which, of course, doesn't mean that much. I would very much appreciate having folks like Harald, Martin and Tex weigh in on the issue. Another comment that has come up is a question about why we can't just use the W3C ITS spec for this, which is definitely a valid question. I would definitely appreciate feedback on that issue as well. When it comes to the rendering of feeds in a UI, dir="" is likely not to have any significant effect since, as you and others have pointed out, (x)html has no similar notion and a direction has to be assumed. The main point of dir="" is to ensure that the original directional context of an entry is preserved regardless of the specific feed that happens to contain the entry. - James Frank Ellermann wrote: > James M Snell wrote: > >> My apologies for not getting back to this sooner. > > No problem, it's only that the proposal to "rename" > the draft attracted my attention, and after I said > that this is dubious in a "Last Call" thread I read > the text, not only the file name... ;-) > > All I know about BiDi issues could be summarized as > "if Harald / Martin / Tex / ... think it works it's > supposed to work". But the acknowledgements in your > draft did not mention anybody I know as BiDi-expert, > that was the point when I started to worry about it. > > Apparently 'dir' is strictly binary, "LTR" or "RTL", > and your draft adds a third value "". Maybe this is > a good idea. Or it is a case of "ternary bits", I > can't judge it. > > Possibly you could convince me that it's a good idea > by giving an example where dir="ltr" and dir="" make > a difference, and/or by stating that dir="" MUST NOT > be used within the (X)HTML parts of an Atom document, > but actually that's beside the point. What's really > interesting, did any BiDi expert confirm dir="" as a > good idea ? If dir="" is a part of the experiment - > fine, let's see what happens. > > Frank > > ___ > IETF mailing list > IETF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Eric REALLY... I heard during that BOF that there was consensus to start the work. I also saw that quite a few liked the YANG proposal, and several wanted to have mappings to either XSD or RELAX or DSDL. The smaller meetings that happened after the NOF, included people from all of the proposals that were on the table, including people who were in teh Design Team for the requirements. We had fruitfull discussions that converged onto a single approach. We then got all the people from the various proposls together on the rdcml mailing list (the one that was used by the requirements design team), and we had a 2 week long discussion with multiple hundereds of emails and opinions, and again, we converged to a common and acceptable draft WG charter. That draft WG charter was then put to the NGO mailing list were we had further discussion with various other people. Again we seem to have consensus. Several non-original-netconf people are on that mailing list, as a result of the BOF discussions we have had in the past thow IETF meetings. Then, Dan brought it to IESG, and the IESG agreed to send the WG proposal out for IETF Wide review. That is where we are now, and sure you can vent your opinion, but claiming (or accusing us) that there was no wide discussion or that there is no consensus at all and that there were/are just 4 different groups with conflicting proposals does not seem valid to me. Further, the change you propose to the WG charter, could be done,. and then in the first WG session we could declare victory for the milestone you want. I believe that virtually all of the interested people were involved in the discussion sofar. So I do not see why we would need long in a newly formed WG to come to the same conclusion again. But if we do what you propose, then we will consume again more cycles of IESG/IAB and the IETF at large, because they will have to look once more at the WG rechartering in 3 months time. Bert Wijnen > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Eric > Rescorla > Verzonden: dinsdag 22 april 2008 18:10 > Aan: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod) > > > I object to the formation of this WG with this charter. > > While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest > in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical > direction. Rather, a number of proposals were presented, but no > strawpoll, hum, or sense of the room was taken, nor, as far as I can > determine, has there been any such consensus call been taken on any > list I'm aware of. This wasn't an accident--the BOF was explicitly > intended only to determine whether some work in this area should > proceed, not to select a technical approach. > > I understand that an approach like this was proposed in the OPSAREA > meeting by Chris Newman and then that there was a breakout meeting > where it was discussed further. The minutes don't record any consensus > call on this combined direction (only strawpolls on the individual > proposals), and even if such a consensus call had been held, the > OPSAREA meeting would not be the appropriate place for it: this > discussion needs to happen in either the BOF (to allow cross-area > review) or in the designated WG, when it is formed. > > 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. > > -Ekr > > > NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod) > > > > Last modified: 2008-04-10 > > > > Current Status: Proposed Working Group > > > > Chair(s): > > > > TBD > > > > Operations and Management Area Director(s): > > Dan Romascanu > > Ronald Bonica rbonica at juniper.net > > > > Mailing Lists: > > > > General Discussion: ngo at ietf.org > > > > Description: > > > > The NETCONF Working Group has completed a base protocol to be > > used for configuration management. However, the NETCONF protocol > > does not include a standard content layer. The specifications do > > not include a modeling language or accompanying rules that can be > > used to model the management information that is to be configured > > using NETCONF. This has resulted in inconsistent syntax and > > interoperability problems. The purpose of NETMOD is to support > > the ongoing development of IETF and vendor-defined data models > > for NETCONF. > > > > NETMOD's requirements are drawn from the RCDML requirements draft > > (draft-presuhn-rcdml) and documents referenced therein. > > > > The WG will define a "human-friendly" modeling language defining > > the semantics of operational data, configuration data, > > notifications, and operations. This language will focus on > > readability and ease of use. This language must be able to serve > > as the normative description of NETCONF data mode
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Eric Rescorla wrote: > I object to the formation of this WG with this charter. > > While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest > in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical > direction. Rather, a number of proposals were presented, but no > strawpoll, hum, or sense of the room was taken, nor, as far as I can > determine, has there been any such consensus call been taken on any > list I'm aware of. This wasn't an accident--the BOF was explicitly > intended only to determine whether some work in this area should > proceed, not to select a technical approach. > > I understand that an approach like this was proposed in the OPSAREA > meeting by Chris Newman and then that there was a breakout meeting > where it was discussed further. The minutes don't record any consensus > call on this combined direction (only strawpolls on the individual > proposals), and even if such a consensus call had been held, the > OPSAREA meeting would not be the appropriate place for it: this > discussion needs to happen in either the BOF (to allow cross-area > review) or in the designated WG, when it is formed. > I believe there was consensus in the CANMOD BoF that the requirements were sufficiently understood, and the purpose of that BoF had been fulfilled. After the CANMOD BoF, a 15 person design team was formed, which reached consensus on a technical approach, embodied in the charter text. There was also unanimous agreement on the charter, outside the design team (on the NGO mailing list). > 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 thought the charter text did specify a technical approach, which is to utilize YANG as a high-level DML and map YANG constructs to DSDL and XSD. Can you explain this work item further? > > -Ekr Andy > >> NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod) >> >> Last modified: 2008-04-10 >> >> Current Status: Proposed Working Group >> >> Chair(s): >> >> TBD >> >> Operations and Management Area Director(s): >> Dan Romascanu >> Ronald Bonica rbonica at juniper.net >> >> Mailing Lists: >> >> General Discussion: ngo at ietf.org >> >> Description: >> >> The NETCONF Working Group has completed a base protocol to be >> used for configuration management. However, the NETCONF protocol >> does not include a standard content layer. The specifications do >> not include a modeling language or accompanying rules that can be >> used to model the management information that is to be configured >> using NETCONF. This has resulted in inconsistent syntax and >> interoperability problems. The purpose of NETMOD is to support >> the ongoing development of IETF and vendor-defined data models >> for NETCONF. >> >> NETMOD's requirements are drawn from the RCDML requirements draft >> (draft-presuhn-rcdml) and documents referenced therein. > > >> The WG will define a "human-friendly" modeling language defining >> the semantics of operational data, configuration data, >> notifications, and operations. This language will focus on >> readability and ease of use. This language must be able to serve >> as the normative description of NETCONF data models. The WG will >> use YANG (draft-bjorklund-yang) as its starting point for this >> language. >> >> Language abstractions that facilitate model extensibility and >> reuse have been identified as a work area and will be considered >> as a work item or may be integrated into the YANG document based >> on WG consensus. >> >> The WG will define a canonical mapping of this language to >> NETCONF XML instance documents, the on-the-wire format of >> YANG-defined XML content. Only data models defined in YANG will >> have to adhere to this on-the-wire format. >> >> In order to leverage existing XML tools for validating NETCONF >> data in various contexts and also facilitate exchange of data >> models and schemas with other IETF working groups, the WG will >> define standard mapping rules from YANG to the DSDL data modeling >> framework (ISO/IEC 19757) with additional annotations to preserve >> semantics. >> >> The initial YANG mapping rules specifications are expressly defined for >> NETCONF modeling. However, there may be future areas of >> applicability beyond NETCONF, and the WG must provide suitable >> language extensibility mechanisms to allow for such future work. >> The NETMOD WG will only address modeling NETCONF devices and the >> language extensibility mechanisms. Any application of YANG to >> other protocols is future work. >> >> The WG will consult with the NETCONF WG to ensure that NETMOD's >> decision do not conflict with planned work in NETCONF (e.g., >> locking, notifications). >> >> While it is desirable to provide a migration path from existing >> MIB modules to YANG data models (modules), it is not a
Re: Last Call: draft-snell-atompub-bidi (Atom Bidirectional Attribute) to Experimental RFC
James M Snell wrote: > My apologies for not getting back to this sooner. No problem, it's only that the proposal to "rename" the draft attracted my attention, and after I said that this is dubious in a "Last Call" thread I read the text, not only the file name... ;-) All I know about BiDi issues could be summarized as "if Harald / Martin / Tex / ... think it works it's supposed to work". But the acknowledgements in your draft did not mention anybody I know as BiDi-expert, that was the point when I started to worry about it. Apparently 'dir' is strictly binary, "LTR" or "RTL", and your draft adds a third value "". Maybe this is a good idea. Or it is a case of "ternary bits", I can't judge it. Possibly you could convince me that it's a good idea by giving an example where dir="ltr" and dir="" make a difference, and/or by stating that dir="" MUST NOT be used within the (X)HTML parts of an Atom document, but actually that's beside the point. What's really interesting, did any BiDi expert confirm dir="" as a good idea ? If dir="" is a part of the experiment - fine, let's see what happens. Frank ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
I object to the formation of this WG with this charter. While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical direction. Rather, a number of proposals were presented, but no strawpoll, hum, or sense of the room was taken, nor, as far as I can determine, has there been any such consensus call been taken on any list I'm aware of. This wasn't an accident--the BOF was explicitly intended only to determine whether some work in this area should proceed, not to select a technical approach. I understand that an approach like this was proposed in the OPSAREA meeting by Chris Newman and then that there was a breakout meeting where it was discussed further. The minutes don't record any consensus call on this combined direction (only strawpolls on the individual proposals), and even if such a consensus call had been held, the OPSAREA meeting would not be the appropriate place for it: this discussion needs to happen in either the BOF (to allow cross-area review) or in the designated WG, when it is formed. 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. -Ekr > NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod) > > Last modified: 2008-04-10 > > Current Status: Proposed Working Group > > Chair(s): > > TBD > > Operations and Management Area Director(s): > Dan Romascanu > Ronald Bonica rbonica at juniper.net > > Mailing Lists: > > General Discussion: ngo at ietf.org > > Description: > > The NETCONF Working Group has completed a base protocol to be > used for configuration management. However, the NETCONF protocol > does not include a standard content layer. The specifications do > not include a modeling language or accompanying rules that can be > used to model the management information that is to be configured > using NETCONF. This has resulted in inconsistent syntax and > interoperability problems. The purpose of NETMOD is to support > the ongoing development of IETF and vendor-defined data models > for NETCONF. > > NETMOD's requirements are drawn from the RCDML requirements draft > (draft-presuhn-rcdml) and documents referenced therein. > The WG will define a "human-friendly" modeling language defining > the semantics of operational data, configuration data, > notifications, and operations. This language will focus on > readability and ease of use. This language must be able to serve > as the normative description of NETCONF data models. The WG will > use YANG (draft-bjorklund-yang) as its starting point for this > language. > > Language abstractions that facilitate model extensibility and > reuse have been identified as a work area and will be considered > as a work item or may be integrated into the YANG document based > on WG consensus. > > The WG will define a canonical mapping of this language to > NETCONF XML instance documents, the on-the-wire format of > YANG-defined XML content. Only data models defined in YANG will > have to adhere to this on-the-wire format. > > In order to leverage existing XML tools for validating NETCONF > data in various contexts and also facilitate exchange of data > models and schemas with other IETF working groups, the WG will > define standard mapping rules from YANG to the DSDL data modeling > framework (ISO/IEC 19757) with additional annotations to preserve > semantics. > > The initial YANG mapping rules specifications are expressly defined for > NETCONF modeling. However, there may be future areas of > applicability beyond NETCONF, and the WG must provide suitable > language extensibility mechanisms to allow for such future work. > The NETMOD WG will only address modeling NETCONF devices and the > language extensibility mechanisms. Any application of YANG to > other protocols is future work. > > The WG will consult with the NETCONF WG to ensure that NETMOD's > decision do not conflict with planned work in NETCONF (e.g., > locking, notifications). > > While it is desirable to provide a migration path from existing > MIB modules to YANG data models (modules), it is not a > requirement to provide full compatibility between SMIv2 and YANG. > The Working Group will determine which constructs (e.g., conformance > statements) are not relevant for translation from SMIv2 to YANG. YANG is > also permitted to introduce constructs that cannot be expressed in SMIv2. > However, all basic types that can be represented in SMIv2 must be > expressible in YANG. > > Initial deliverables are below. The working group may choose to > combine multiple deliverables into a single document where deemed > appropriate. > > 1. An architecture document explaining the relationship > between YANG and its inputs and outputs. (informational) > > 2. The YANG data modeling language and semantics (proposed >
Discussions about IPsec maintenance/extensions WG
Hi all, We're starting a discussion about the possibility of forming an IPsec maintenance/extensions working group. If you're interested, join the IPsec mailing list. Joining the list: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec List archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/current/maillist.html Best regards, Pasi ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
