And what are those mysterious requirements it doesnt meet Thomas? cheers, jamal
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Thomas Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: > > I believe its because OF-Config does not meet the requirements we set forth. > > --Tom > > On Apr 18, 2014:11:31 AM, at 11:31 AM, Behcet Sarikaya > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Dean, > > I attended i2rs session in London on this issue. > > My question is why ONF Management and Configuration protocol (OF-Config 1.2) > was not on the table. > > Regards, > > Behcet > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Dean Bogdanovic <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Jamal, >> >> Here are two criteria to be considered: >> 1. technical >> 2. commercial/business >> >> We can discuss pros and cons for both, but have to state that from >> business perspective for Juniper going with RESTCONF/YANG make more sense. >> We already built the Junos model in YANG and >> have or are in process of building needed tools. Same goes for RESTCONF. >> We have NETCONF implemented in Junos and are working on RESTCONF >> implementation. >> Many carriers adopted or are adopting NETCONF/YANG, are looking into >> RESTCONF as well, so this looks like a low hanging fruit from business >> perspective. >> >> Looking at technical aspect, unless there is a very compelling reason (and >> there might be, but I'm not aware of it), don't see reason to switch from >> RESTCONF and YANG. >> We can find out down the line that RESTCONF/YANG was the wrong way to go, >> but that can be always changed. From my perspective it looks right today. >> >> Just to be clear, I vote for RESTCONF/YANG adoption for i2rs. >> >> Dean >> >> On Apr 18, 2014, at 7:27 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > 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 >> > >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> i2rs mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
