Subject: Re: [NGO] CANMOD BOF

From: Mehmet Ersue <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:04:40 +0000 (GMT)

Hi,

I think what IESG and IAB decided is a solid process proposing to 
validate the requirements first. We need to have a discussion on the 
DT requirements and other requirement contributions first to go one 
step forward.

As many of you I hoped the requirements discussion would be more 
fast and we can concentrate on the solutions. But it seems that 
there are still uncertainties and not agreed requirements. I appreciate 
having additional discussion time in the OPSAREA meeting.

Cheers, 
Mehmet 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:45 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [NGO] CANMOD BOF 
> 
> The IESG and IAB
 teleconference approved holding the Comparing
> Approaches to NETCONF Modeling (CANMOD) BOF in Philadelphia with the
> recommendation of making changes in the agenda. There were several
> comments and concerns, and the IAB and the IESG recommend 
> that the focus
> of the BOF be placed on discussing and validating the requirements as
> documented in the design team and other contributions and recommending
> how the NETCONF DM work should proceed in the most efficient 
> manner. All
> recommendations in the meeting will be validated on the list.
> Presentations on the different solution proposals should be reduced
> relative to the current agenda and limited to the minimal positioning
> relative to the requirements.  
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NGO mailing list
>
 [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo
> 

      Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? Versuchen Sie´s mit dem neuen Yahoo! Mail. www.yahoo.de/mail

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:19:51 +0100

> DT requirements and other requirement contributions first to go one 

I have quite some experience with these requirements discussions in
the IETF and in particular with requirements discussions about network
management data modeling languages in the IETF and from my personal
experience I can tell you that this is all a waste of time. These
discussions will not bring us any closer to a decision about the
direction. The only thing is that the list of requirements grows in
each incarnation of this requirements collection process by some say
40 new requirements.

If it takes three attempts to get the allowance from the IESG/IAB to
discuss a solid proposal addressing an obvious need, backed up by
major implementors of the technology concerned and an open source
implementation of the proposal to get a BOF while there is nothing of
comparable detail out there, then something seems to be odd.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo