On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 07:04:14PM +0100, Mehmet Ersue wrote: > > It is correct that we need a standard track document for the new DS framework > - to provide a basis for other RFCs to develope. However the current DT > solution draft has not been prepared as a standard track document nor it has > standard relevant content. Such concept description is usually prepared as an > architecture document (see example in <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6244> > RFC 6244). > > As I stated earlier I believe “a new protocol- and language-independent > standard document” should be prepared defining the generic datastore > framework (based on and following the concept in the DT solution draft). >
To me, this sounds like duplicate work for no real technical value. If the existance of two WG results into actions like this, we should seriously consider the option to merge NETMOD and NETCONF into one WG. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
