While I would expect most of the detail work on a solution to be done in
NetConf, it would be very unusual to treat the requirements as something
thrown over the wall, with the ensuing work done only in NetConf. If
NetConf wants its work to be suitable to meet the I2RS requirements,
then experience with many cross-WG activities tells us the proposal will
need to also be reviewed and discussed with I2RS.
If NetConf wants to do what it judges is best, and merely hope that I2RS
adopts it when it is done, then the NetConf WG is certainly free to do
that. But the odds of meeting the requirements are low, and the odds of
I2RS waiting around on the assumption that the right magic will be
thrown back over the wall is also low.
Yours,
Joel
On 6/19/15 2:46 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:52:51AM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
Juergen:
<chair hat on>
The I2RS WG still needs a written draft proposing how this would work to
have an effective discussion.
<chair hat off>
My understanding is that I2RS formulates requirements and the solution
is done in NETCONF. If this is correct, then there is in principle no
point in sending solution drafts to I2RS.
Yes, I understand that requirements are often written with certain
solutions in mind and this is why requirement processes usually are
frustrating.
/js
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
