On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > > I think Jan and others have explained why they think they can leverage the NC/RC/YANG technology to implement I2RS. There are tool and data model management requirements in addition to the protocol in order to have a workable solution. Unless the RIB data is one monolithic blob implemented without variation on every router, then issues such as modularity, conformance model, data lifecycle, distributed naming authority, data augmentation, and language extensibility are going to matter. Andy > 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
