Dear all,
I've been spending the last 2 hours reading that full email thread, up
to this time.
Not sure to which email I should reply, so here am I, top posting.
+ 1 on YANG for the data model language.
What counts at the end of the day is a consistent data model language
for configuration, because implementing a proxy for different data model
languages is a pain, time consuming, and error-prone.
Ideally, we should have a consistent information model language, but the
industry/standards are not there yet. Not even sure they will even
arrive there one day.
Looking at the life cycling of specifying a new language, implementing
it, deploying it, and developing tools around it (I have SMI and YANG in
mind), having a new data model language for I2RS only is not practical.
And the more we wait, the more obvious the solution is.
I know, it's not about a technical argument any longer (those have been
made on the lits already).
Let's look at the WG deliverables:
Jul 2013
Request publication of an Informational document defining the problem
statement
Jul 2013
Request publication of an Informational document defining the high-level
architecture
Aug 2013
Request publication of Informational documents describing use cases
Sep 2013
Request publication of an Informational document defining the protocol
requirements
Sep 2013
Request publication of an Informational document defining encoding
language requirements
Feb 2014
Request publication of Standards Track documents specifying information
models
Feb 2014
Request publication of an Informational document providing an analysis
of existing IETF and other protocols and encoding languages against the
requirements
Feb 2014
Consider re-chartering
The least we can say is that the WG is late.
I observe that after 1 year and 3 months after the WG creation, we still
don't have the problem statement/architecture/requirements: that
explains, whether we like it or not, why the business reasons are
getting more and more important compared to the technical arguments.
Didn't we see a few comments lately about the IETF not being relevant
because we're too slow?
Maybe the IESG should be stricter: "no problem statement with a year, WG
closed", but I guess I'm diverging :-)
Once YANG is selected, NETCONF/RESTCONF for the protocol is the next
logical step, even if I believe that in practice, we'll see different
devices speaking different languages.
Regards, Benoit (as a contributor)
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
