> On Apr 22, 2014, at 6:43 AM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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)
I am with you in the "move forward or shut this train down" sentiment. Really how long does it take to decide in a modeling language - esp when the ietf has one that is perfectly suitable? 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
