Tom:
On this 100% agreement with you - that those who wished to support OF-Config should have presented at IETF 89. Sue From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 1:42 PM To: b nitin Cc: [email protected]; Susan Hares; [email protected]; Crabbe Edward; Dean Bogdanovic; Jamal Hadi Salim Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model On Apr 18, 2014:12:46 PM, at 12:46 PM, Nitin Bahadur <[email protected]> wrote: If the study showed that OF-Config did not meet the requirements, that is fine but I heard no one said that. On Feb 5th, Alia Atlas said: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01243.html > Gap Analysis for different Protocols: I2RS needs to select a protocol to use. I believe that we have volunteers for discussing RESTCONF. > We'd welcome hearing from others who can provide at least a presentation for review before IETF and preferably a quick draft as well. On Feb 27th, Ed Crabbe said: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01291.html > The I2RS agenda has been posted. Those who think OF-Config should have been a candidate, should have presented at the IETF; or at least started a discussion on the mailing list. My 2 cents Nitin I agree %100 with your 2 cents. --Tom _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
