Subject: RE: no NETCONF WG meeting planned for Paris

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 11:34:14 -0400

hi

So, as I indicated in Minneapolis, I plan two presentations into the Paris
meeting. One on the Netmod work proposing that gets added to the charter and
another on asynchronous messaging with a similar objectives. The technical
work is being progressed as we speak.

Are you suggesting that you would like to see the proposed updated charter
before Paris?

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 12:08 PM
To: netconf
Subject: no NETCONF WG meeting planned for Paris

Hi,

At this time, it appears all WG milestones will be completed before the next
IETF, so there are no plans to hold a NETCONF WG meeting at the Paris IETF. 

We understand that some people want to continue adding features to the
protocol and/or work on standard data models, but this work would need to be
chartered first -- a process that has not been started, and not likely to be
completed before the next IETF.

Andy and Simon

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the word
'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 11:51:39 -0400

It would be good to get a NETMOD charter defined and approved so the
work could be done in a WG.

David Harrington
[email-masked]

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Sharon Chisholm
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 11:34 AM
> To: netconf
> Subject: RE: no NETCONF WG meeting planned for Paris
> 
> hi
>

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 09:19:05 -0700

>Are you suggesting that you would like to see the proposed updated charter
Simon and I both agree that the NETCONF WG should concentrate
on finishing the 1.0 document set and then take a little break -- like until
the RFCs are actually published -- before charging ahead with more features.
We would like to make sure the IESG approves the work we've done
so far before building on that work.  A little time for implementation,
inter-operability testing, and deployment would be a good idea as well.

Before this new work, we would of course need to update the WG charter,
and to do that, we need consensus on that charter.  Neither Simon or myself
is eager to take on the NETMOD work in its current form.  The deferred
protocol features like notifications can be started if there if WG 
consensus.

Of course, every feature on that list is there because it is difficult, 
contentious,
and the WG couldn't reach agreement on it.  I'm not convinced we will do
any better the second time around.  (Prove me wrong -- write a great draft
that wins the WG over.)  Solution proposals full of the same holes as the
first time around aren't going to become WG drafts just because they exist.

More on NETMOD:  My preference is for NETCONF to be content-neutral,
like the document claims.   I would like to see other SDOs and even a 
NETMOD
WG in the IETF define mappings between their data modeling constructs and
the NETCONF protocol (operations and transaction model).   I do not think
a one-size-fits-all solution will ever work, or that the first cut at a 
data modeling
standard will be long-lasting.  Personally, I haven't seen anything yet 
that really
removes enough complexity to be interesting, but I'm confident in the 
next few
years somebody will figure it all out.

>Sharon
Andy