Subject: Re: [Netconf] Last Call: <draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-05.txt> (Time Capability in NETCONF) to Experimental RFC

From: Joe Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:28:55 -0400

On 6/30/15 13:11, Ersue, Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich) wrote:
> Dear Joe,
>
> an individual draft cannot be adopted by a WG if there is no measurable support on the maillist.
> As such Netconf co-chairs asked Tal Mizrahi in April to demonstrate such support.
>
> Where have you been as Tal was asking on the maillist people to state their support on his draft by saying:
>
> "Feedbacks will be welcome.
> Even short feedbacks such as "I think this draft is useful" will be welcome."
>
> Unfortunately there was no response to Tal's mail on April 15, 2015.

Mehmet, I understand about lack of feedback.  What's interesting is that 
now the draft has gone this experimental route, more feedback (and 
support has come forward).

Joe

>
> Mehmet
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Netconf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Joe Clarke
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 7:17 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] Last Call: <draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-05.txt> (Time Capability in NETCONF) to Experimental RFC
>
> On 6/29/15 12:49, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>> (I apologize for cross-posting) but it seems justified in this case)
>>
>> I find this work useful.
>
> As do I.  I remember the when this was first presented in Berlin.  I
> thought it had value.
>
>>
>> I have two questions:
>> - why was not this document adopted by the NETCONF WG? Lack of time, out of focus, or are there any other (technical?) reasons? Why did it had to go on AD-sponsored and Experimental track?
>
> I'll speak from what I saw.  There didn't seem to be a lot of traction
> on the WG list, but I do feel this would be beneficial as a working
> group item.
>
> Joe
>
>> - This work may potentially be useful for LMAP which has scheduling and time-stamping features in its architecture and framework. LMAP however just selected RESTCONF as their preferred protocol. What would it take to extend this work to RESTCONF)? (may be another piece of work)
>>
>> Thanks and Regards,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: IETF-Announce [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
>>> The IESG
>>> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 5:58 PM
>>> To: IETF-Announce
>>> Subject: Last Call: <draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-05.txt> (Time
>>> Capability in NETCONF) to Experimental RFC
>>>
>>>
>>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
>>> following document:
>>> - 'Time Capability in NETCONF'
>>>     <draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-05.txt> as Experimental RFC
>>>
>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
>>> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>>> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2015-07-29. Exceptionally, comments may be
>>> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
>>> the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>>
>>> Abstract
>>>
>>>
>>>      This document defines a capability-based extension to the Network
>>>      Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) that allows time-triggered
>>>      configuration and management operations. This extension allows
>>>      NETCONF clients to invoke configuration updates according to
>>>      scheduled times, and allows NETCONF servers to attach timestamps to
>>>      the data they send to NETCONF clients.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Capability URNs registry
>>> requires a standards action in order to populate the registry. This document
>>> was taken out of the ISE stream and brought forward as an AD sponsored
>>> individual-submission to address this consideration.
>>>
>>>
>>> The file can be obtained via
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>>> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dmm-2Dnetconf-2Dtime-
>>> 2Dcapability_&d=AwICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNX
>>> CJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=eIbq6OXE65r_w9lwmd5WrktViMncM
>>> zhCDjk3tyjnVvU&s=B6e1FBSZH9H-
>>> OYAnRMYEgTJVYQ6SSqa2K9XpuIyx3mI&e=
>>>
>>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>>> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dmm-2Dnetconf-2Dtime-
>>> 2Dcapability_ballot_&d=AwICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR3
>>> 1OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=eIbq6OXE65r_w9lwmd5WrktVi
>>> MncMzhCDjk3tyjnVvU&s=WbISmWkVGVo43riTMHY7kzIkAREkQrB2aq-
>>> lyYOad-Y&e=
>>>
>>>
>>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Netconf mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>