Ok, since nobody is saying anything i'll bite. How would you like for this discussion to proceed?
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Edward Crabbe <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear I2RSers, > > At the last I2RS WG meeting there was a great deal of conversation > regarding selection of both modeling language and underlying transport > protocol. Consensus at the time was to make use of Yang and (NetConf or > RestConf) (unclear). > And i believe the view, as correctly presented by you, is for folks to go back and make educated decisions by actually getting knowledgeable about the different views presented. "Consensus" that you described above to me looked like a pageant popularity contest not based on anything technical ("who likes contestant in the blue shirt? please cheer for them"). In my opinion i dont think the requirements are clear. Will that get the crickets stop chirping? cheers, jamal > Before coming to a final consensus, we'd like to give people adequate time > to review source material, marshall arguments and discuss on the mailing > list. To this end, we're asking that interested parties do just this over > the course of the next ~two weeks. Following that period, on 4/28, we'll be > initiating a consensus call that will last an additional two weeks, with the > aim of converging modeling language / protocol by Friday, 5/9. > > The consensus call should also generate proposals for any material changes > required to the underlying protocols. These proposals in turn will form the > basis for a later draft including gap analysis and said changes. Those > strongly in favor of one protocol over another should be prepared to > contribute to this analysis. > > > best, > > -ed > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
