> On 22 Dec 2015, at 16:22, Nadeau Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
>       The action I am trying to tease out of this thread is how do we take 
> action
> going forward? There are many who are saying (and doing) what you say below; 
> however,

This should IMO be OK. One thing that might help avoid unnecessary duplication 
of work is to keep and up-to-date directory, where everybody could register 
their modules. Everything else could be a bottom-up process.

Lada

> there are related discussions on the RFC6020 update to the module update rules
> claiming that we should only focus on IETF-realted modules. Do you see the 
> catch-22
> I am trying to make clear here?   The other issue is the simple process for 
> those modules
> that are developed here. Should we move them all to an external model, should 
> we 
> amend the IETF’s processes to accommodate rapid model development and 
> iteration?
> 
>       —Tom
> 
> 
>> On Dec 22, 2015:8:39 AM, at 8:39 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 22 Dec 2015, at 14:06, Nadeau Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [moving the thread to its own discussion.]
>>> 
>>>>    This is a blocking factor that people are not considering: The RFC 
>>>> process the
>>>> IETF has in place is not suitable for rapid/modern/canonical model 
>>>> development.  It will
>>>> be difficult for the IESG review process to scale to even a couple models 
>>>> during any given
>>>> telechat period given the state of the document review/approval process. 
>>>> How do we
>>>> envision the IESG reviewing 250+ models (and growing)?  Besides the 
>>>> initial RFC version,
>>>> rapid refresh/update of models has the same issues.
>>> 
>>> I don't disagree, but I propose that we stick to the oper state discussion 
>>> in this email thread.
>> 
>> I agree with Tom. I personally decided not to work on any new module in the 
>> IETF any time soon. I am currently working on a number of modules related to 
>> DNS, they will be freely available for review and use by everybody, but I 
>> don't want to go through a similar process as with ietf-routing, and then be 
>> stymied by the update rules.
>> 
>> Lada
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards, Benoit
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> 
>> --
>> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
>> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C




_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to