Hi Jamal,
On 5/22/14, 8:22 AM, "Jamal Hadi Salim" <[email protected]> wrote: >On "open source availability" >======================= >The notion that because there is some open source implementation it >qualifies some solution as legit is a red herring. 90% of IETF standards >don¹t pass that smell test. There is no such requirement anywhere. There >is *absolutely* no open source implementation of I2RS using >netconf/restconf/yang. I *doubt* there is one in any organization >anywhere on the globe. So this boils down to be a marketing gimmick in an >engineering organization. Which is where my frustration comes in. Perhaps >the starting point at IETF is to go back to the old days of implementing >first as opensource variant, get cohesion around it and then >standardizing. > Jeff¹s email states: "Part of this consideration includes elements of expediency such as existing open source tool chains and implementation experience of I2RS-like mechanisms in other organizations and vendors.² I don¹t think that Jeff is saying that there exists an open source I2RS implementation - he is saying that there is and *I2RS-like* mechanism in open source (I think we all agree that NC/Y qualifies as *I2RS-like*). The point is that these open source NC/Y implementations (there are multiple) will provide developers and protocols designers with a platform (and a starting point) that will allow them to extend the existing functionality towards I2RS, and to quickly prototype new protocol functionality that will be defined in the I2RS WG. Thanks, Jan > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
