> On Dec 22, 2015:10:36 AM, at 10:36 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> 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
That has been discussed on a separate thread. I think the best idea
right now is to
do something in IANA for a module namespace/ID registry but Benoit has asked us
to write
up a draft with some ideas.
—Tom
>
>> 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
