On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Nobody is saying one is better than the other. > >>> I am saying the IETF does standards. > >> and running code > > that's what the t-shirt says, but I have never seen "running code" in > > a WG charter. > > an ops wg might be a good place to start. but we've kinda been beaten > to the punch. > > the idr wg, as in most routing wgs, requires two or more interoperating > implementations to progress a document. >
sounds wonderful. All WGs should avoid sandbox flailing, and requiring 2 implementations is a nice high bar to accomplish that. My point was that (for YANG anyway) the IETF is working closely with opensource projects like OpenDaylight because people involved in these projects bring their requests to the WGs. I don't think ODL wants to be "owned" by the IETF and the IETF should not attempt to control such projects. > randy > Andy
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
