I echo Tom Petch's concern.
Given the level of deployment success of IETF management efforts
for the last 5-10 years, I'd suggest that we need both customer
pull as well as technical community push for such an effort
to succeed. While there have been arguments made for the latter,
I don't see
Hi -
From: Bernard Aboba [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
I echo Tom Petch's concern.
Given the level of deployment success of IETF management efforts
for the last 5-10 years, I'd
- Original Message -
From: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Eric Rescorla' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Bert Wijnen - IETF'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:49 PM
Subject: RE: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod
Hi all,
On Thursday 24 April 2008 09.22.22 Tom.Petch wrote:
The people who believe that YANG is more expressive and better suited
for this poarticular purpose include contributors to the design of
SMIv2, MIB Doctors, members of the NMRG who helped develop the SMING
information and data
I echo Tom Petch’s concern.
Given the level of deployment success of new IETF management efforts
for the last 5-10 years, I’d suggest that we need both customer
“pull” as well as technical community “push” for such an effort
to succeed. While there have been arguments made for the latter,
I
]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Eric Rescorla
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:18 PM
To: Bert Wijnen - IETF
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:04 AM
To: Eric Rescorla
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Eric Rescorla wrote:
Which is why it is now returned
Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:17:47 -0600,
Randy Presuhn wrote:
Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology
choices at the CANMOD BOF. Our original proposal for consensus
hums included getting a of sense of preferences among the various
proposals.
Hi,
I should probably just sit down and be quiet, but I have a few comments.
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 23.56.40 Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:16:02 +0200,
Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote:
instead of discussing if there was consensus AT THE BOF
(we all know that at this point in time
At Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:39:13 +0200,
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
I congratulate the participants who worked on the charter on managing to
have the discussion and come to consensus on an approach. I think it's
up to Eric to demonstrate to the IESG that there's support in the
community for
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:17:47 -0600,
Randy Presuhn wrote:
Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology
choices at the CANMOD BOF. Our original proposal for consensus
hums included getting a of sense of preferences
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of ext Andy Bierman
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:45 PM
To: Harald Alvestrand
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:17:47 -0600,
Randy
+1
Bert Wijnen
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mehmet Ersue
Verzonden: woensdag 23 april 2008 17:30
Aan: Andy Bierman; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Onderwerp: RE: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Another +1
Andy Bierman wrote:
I don't think a formal WG process is needed to determine that
the strongest consensus exists for the approach currently outlined
in the charter. The 15 people on the design team represented
a wide cross section of those actually interested in this work.
I am among the 10
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Eric Rescorla
I propose that you list (again) your (technical) objections
to the the current proposal.
Sure. Based on my knowledge of modelling/protocol description
languages, the techniques
David Harrington wrote:
Here are my reasons why I support the charter, which align with yours:
There are multiple types of users for data models.
The operators and reviewers care about the semantic model
much more than the syntactic mapping. Ease of use and stability
have proven to be the
: David Partain
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Onderwerp: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:00:53 +0200,
David Partain wrote:
Greetings,
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 18.10.10 Eric Rescorla wrote:
I object to the formation of this WG
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:45:02 -0700, Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
ER I remain concerned that this is the wrong technical approach; it
ER appears to me to be unnecessary and overcomplicated. However, it's
ER clear that's a minority opinion, so I'll drop my objection to this
ER charter.
I object to the formation of this WG with this charter.
While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest
in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical
direction. Rather, a number of proposals were presented, but no
strawpoll, hum, or sense of the room was
Eric Rescorla wrote:
I object to the formation of this WG with this charter.
While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest
in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical
direction. Rather, a number of proposals were presented, but no
strawpoll, hum,
2008 18:10
Aan: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
I object to the formation of this WG with this charter.
While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest
in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:08:49 -0700,
Andy Bierman wrote:
Eric Rescorla wrote:
I object to the formation of this WG with this charter.
While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest
in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical
direction. Rather,
Hi -
From: Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
...
Accordingly, if this WG is to be formed, the entire section (and
corresponding milestones) which
Greetings,
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 18.10.10 Eric Rescorla wrote:
I object to the formation of this WG with this charter.
For those who haven't been involved in the discussions to date, Eric has
objected to this work from the very beginning, as far back as the first
attempt to get a BOF and
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:14:10 +0200,
Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote:
Eric
REALLY...
Yes, really.
I heard during that BOF that there was consensus to start the work.
I also saw that quite a few liked the YANG proposal, and several
wanted to have mappings to either XSD or RELAX or
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:00:53 +0200,
David Partain wrote:
Greetings,
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 18.10.10 Eric Rescorla wrote:
I object to the formation of this WG with this charter.
For those who haven't been involved in the discussions to date, Eric has
objected to this work from the
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 23.06.57 Eric Rescorla wrote:
Perhaps that's true, but I don't see that that's an argument
against actually running an open process rather than declaring
a winner in advance and asking the IETF to ratify it.'
Hi,
There seems to be an underlying argument that we've
W.r.t.
All this is great stuff, but it all happened after the BOF, so
you can't reasonably claim that it represents BOF consensus.
And since BOFs are our primary mechanism for open, cross area
assessment for WG formation, I don't think it's accurate to suggest
that this is anywhere as near as
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 23.14.01 Eric Rescorla wrote:
The sum of all this verbiage is that, precisely as I said, there
wasn't consensus at the BOF, but that there was some set of rump
meetings where this compromise was hashed out.
Greetings,
And what will be gained by forcing us to jump
Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
From: Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
...
Accordingly, if this WG is to be formed, the entire section (and
corresponding
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:10:53 +0200,
Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote:
W.r.t.
All this is great stuff, but it all happened after the BOF, so
you can't reasonably claim that it represents BOF consensus.
And since BOFs are our primary mechanism for open, cross area
assessment for WG formation, I
]; ietf@ietf.org
Onderwerp: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:00:53 +0200,
David Partain wrote:
Greetings,
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 18.10.10 Eric Rescorla wrote:
I object to the formation of this WG with this charter.
For those who
Language (netmod)
Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
From: Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
...
Accordingly, if this WG is to be formed, the entire
Hi all,
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 23.14.03 Andy Bierman wrote:
IMO, there is strong community consensus for the charter as it
is currently written. There are several technical approaches,
such as 'continue to write data models in XSD' which are
technically viable, but have no community
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:16:02 +0200,
Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote:
instead of discussing if there was consensus AT THE BOF
(we all know that at this point in time we DO have
consensus between all the interested WORKERS in this space,
albeit that the current consensus was arrived at in further
Hi -
Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology
choices at the CANMOD BOF. Our original proposal for consensus
hums included getting a of sense of preferences among the various
proposals. We were told we could *not* ask these questions, for fear
of upsetting Eric
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:17:47 -0600,
Randy Presuhn wrote:
Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology
choices at the CANMOD BOF. Our original proposal for consensus
hums included getting a of sense of preferences among the various
proposals. We were told we could
Eric Rescorla wrote:
Which is why it is now returned to the broader community for
additional perspectives from those not already committed to a
particular path
Are they committed to doing the work?
Do they have their own constituency?
Since the topic is not new, where have they been and
Hi -
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
...
Are they committed to doing the work?
The bulk of the work has been
--On April 15, 2008 13:30:01 -0700 IESG Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
I support the creation of this WG.
2. The YANG data modeling language and semantics (proposed
standard)
...
5. Mapping rules of YANG to DSDL data modeling framework (ISO/IEC
Chris Newman writes:
The simpler (5)
happens to be, the more confident I will become that YANG is following best
practices for XML DMLs.
My guess is the opposite: many of the more useful features of XSD
and DSDL require distinct and uncomfortable layout of the schema
material. For example,
41 matches
Mail list logo
