> 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 thi
To be clear, and for the benefit of anyone reading this who hasn't tracked
attendance at the various bofs & discussions, Eric was certainly not the
only (then) IAB member who had issues with the proposed approach.
And, due to the unavoidable collision of related sessions in our
multi-tracked I
IETF Community:
IANA is currently engaged in a project to convert the IETF related
registries to XML to provide the community with multiple ways of
viewing registry information. When conversion to XML is done, XML
will become the source format for the registries and the current
formats of html an
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 mos
> -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 tec
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
+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.
Another +1.
I don't know what to add. It is not very common that a
large group of 15 persons (covering authors from all
solution proposals so far) volunteer and ask for being
involved in the draft charter preparation.
After having hundreds of mails in the RCDML maillist and
having reached a
Folks,
The exchange over netmod was one of the more pragmatic and encouraging threads
I've seen in the IETF in a very long time. I think it crystallized the core
criteria that ought to drive the decision for chartering a group.
Rather than filter them through my own re-wording, here are the ti
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 p
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 dis
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 i
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
>> p
13 matches
Mail list logo
