Hi Alia, I appreciate the opportunity and want to thank you, Ed and Jeff. It is time to move on.
cheers, jamal On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jamal, > > I do agree on moving on. But, just to clarify, I didn't start I2RS thinking > that NetConf/YANG were the right answer - though RestConf comes closer. I > also know that ForCES has a lot of really > good technology. I do and did know of the business considerations that were > expressed > during the discussion. > > I was trying to not have a strong opinion and be sure that you were given > time to articulate > why ForCES was not only possible but might be better enough technically to > be able to handle > the business considerations. I apologize if that came across as having > made up my mind; I was trying to listen to the others in the WG as well and > those opinions were fairly uniform. > > Regards, > Alia > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Alia, >> >> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi Jamal, >> >> > >> > [Alia] If your arguments hadn't been being listened to and >> > considered, the decision would have happened many months ago. >> >> Sorry, I dont mean to be ungrateful but I was referring to the last 2 >> months >> or so process where i thought the real discussion was happening. Yes, you >> could >> have dismissed ForCES right off the bat - and we have come a long way; >> thanks >> for at least providing that opportunity. >> >> > At the end of the day, despite a year of >> > discussion and suggestion for ForCES, others who are planning on >> > implementing >> > were not persuaded nor was there a technical reason that precluded a >> > different choice. >> > >> >> Persuading people already vested in netconf/restconf/yang could only >> happen >> if the starting point was requirements from which the proposed solutions >> are >> cross-checked. >> Note: I recall the first time i brought it up, both yourself and Ed >> made it clear >> you were in favor of netconf/yang. I think i would have had a better >> chance >> convincing people otherwise against a requirements list. >> >> > [Alia] Given that either technology is possible, #b is a good to have >> > that will simplify >> > learning, implementation, work to be done on many models, and probably >> > operations. >> > >> >> Ok. >> >> >> On #d: >> >> My challenge is accepting something without seeing a gap analysis >> >> first. >> >> To me this overrides the economics of #c. >> >> So i am going to wait to see how the selections actually meet >> >> the requirements and how much refactoring is going to be needed for the >> >> protocols before i am convinced. >> > >> > [Alia] There was some discussion of gap analysis earlier to give >> > concepts to the WG. >> > I would like to see it written down cleanly with reasons in either the >> > wiki or a draft. >> > I don't think that waiting for completion on each step before any >> > progress is made on >> > the others is a good idea. It is clear from the list discussion that >> > there are many >> > interested people waiting for the WG to get on to the solutions step. >> > >> >> Then lets please move on. Like i said i will be curiously observing. >> >> cheers, >> jamal > > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
