Subject: [i2rs] I2RS protocol & model selection

From: Edward Crabbe <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 11:46:49 -0700

I2RSers;

We've used the time allocated for review of existing standards-based
mechanisms.
 We are now heading into the week used for selection of a protocol &
modeling language for I2RS.  A few interesting points have been raised on
either side, but no real deal breakers in either direction.  We hope that
the remainder of the week can be spent in substantive conversation on
specific deficiencies in protocols and modeling languages.

A number of people have already expressed an opinion one way or another.
 It should be implied (but is explicitly stated here)  that folks showing
support for a particular protocol do so with reasonable knowledge of /
confidence in that protocol, especially relative to the core set of I2RS
requirements.

Both Jeff and I, from our own reading as well as conversations with
protocol experts, continue to believe that both netconf/restconf and ForCES
protocols, as well as ForCES and YANG, are technically capable of providing
the underlying functionality I2RS requires.  Given this, utility,
familiarity and yes, expedience, will very probably play a role in the
selection process ( as they have clearly already have.)

Looking forward to another interesting week of conversation;  we're very
close now folks.  ^_^

cheers,

   -ed & Jeff

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 05:57:15 -0400

I sent some "requirements" on the list.
Would those two lists be reasonable to compare against for gaps?

cheers,
jamal

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Edward Crabbe <[email-masked]> wrote:
> mechanisms.  We are now heading into the week used for selection of a
> protocol & modeling language for I2RS.  A few interesting points have been
> raised on either side, but no real deal breakers in either direction.  We
> hope that the remainder of the week can be spent in substantive conversation
> on specific deficiencies in protocols and modeling languages.
>
> A number of people have already expressed an opinion one way or another.  It
> should be implied (but is explicitly stated here)  that folks showing
> Both Jeff and I, from our own reading as well as conversations with protocol
> experts, continue to believe that both netconf/restconf and ForCES
> Looking forward to another interesting week of conversation;  we’re very
> close now folks.  ^_^
>
>
> cheers,
>
>    -ed & Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>