I sent some "requirements" on the list. Would those two lists be reasonable to compare against for gaps?
cheers, jamal On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Edward Crabbe <[email protected]> wrote: > I2RSers; > > We've used the time allocated for review of existing standards-based > mechanisms. We are now heading into the week used for selection of a > protocol & modeling language for I2RS. A few interesting points have been > raised on either side, but no real deal breakers in either direction. We > hope that the remainder of the week can be spent in substantive conversation > on specific deficiencies in protocols and modeling languages. > > A number of people have already expressed an opinion one way or another. It > should be implied (but is explicitly stated here) that folks showing > support for a particular protocol do so with reasonable knowledge of / > confidence in that protocol, especially relative to the core set of I2RS > requirements. > > Both Jeff and I, from our own reading as well as conversations with protocol > experts, continue to believe that both netconf/restconf and ForCES > protocols, as well as ForCES and YANG, are technically capable of providing > the underlying functionality I2RS requires. Given this, utility, > familiarity and yes, expedience, will very probably play a role in the > selection process ( as they have clearly already have.) > > Looking forward to another interesting week of conversation; we’re very > close now folks. ^_^ > > > cheers, > > -ed & Jeff > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
