Sigh - ok, I guess we need to address this elephant in the room.
Feel free to change the subject line.

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> It looks to me like the market already has decided.
> NETCONF started in 2002 and was first published as an RFC in 2004.
> Now, 12 years later, it is finally being significantly deployed.
> (Delay is mostly because converting legacy systems from ad-hoc hand-made CLI
> is hard.)
>

The _big box vendors have decided_ as is evident in this thread.
The market used to be driven by vendors deciding. New rules.
If the "market" had decided all along then OF wouldnt be making the dent
it did. We wouldnt even have an I2RS working group or this discussion today.
If OF (regardless of its deficiencies) had come to the IETF it would have been
dead on arrival because the "market" would decide differently.

> Will it take 10 more years for vendors to deploy ForCES?

Traditional vendors have refused to deploy ForCES. That is their choice
and i can empathize with their point of view.
Look - the old rules of "vendor needs to deploy" equalling success is
what held back ForCES by deciding to do this at the IETF.
OTOH, I know without coming to the IETF we would be not as complete as
i believe we are. Tapping into the great system of expertise at the
IETF has been
extremely invaluable. Death by +1 - not so much.

> Are any vendors shipping it now? If not, how soon?
>

Your definition of  "vendor" may vary. Andy, Yuma is a vendor; we are
a vendor. The rules have changed. We dont need the vertical supply chains
to define a protocol.
Hacking the system using old rules will make the IETF irrelevant.

> Ignoring the tool-chains and the history and claiming that both NETCONF/YANG
> and ForCES
> are at the same level of maturity is not really fair.
>

respectfully disagree.
Jan keeps talking about all these great APIs they have. We've been
doing that for a decade.

cheers,
jamal

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

Reply via email to