Subject: RE: Decision on NETCONF charter extensions

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:23:14 -0400

hi

Actually, I don't believe we were done defining the charter updates
either. I had planed one more rewrite after Paris before submitting
again. But that likely doesn't have much bearing on this discussion, so
let me ask a question and make a couple points.

Netconf Events does not require an extension to the charter. Should we
assume then that work is still a candidate for short term inclusion in
the charter?

Those of us working on various bits of netconf phase 2 still feel the
current gaps are critical to be addressed and will continue to progress
that work to support our Netconf implementations. Please let me know if
you are interested in participating in discussions. 

I have heard a lot of offline support for the netconf phase 2 work, but
people have not echoed that support to the mailing list. This
understandably gets interpreted badly by the chairs.

Just a note though that from the bakeoff we saw that ambiguities in the
data model specification framework led to non-interoperable
implementations. Also note that there was at least one operator who
strongly supported Netconf Events in the face to face meeting in Paris. 

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 11:37 AM
To: netconf
Subject: Decision on NETCONF charter extensions

Hi,

Simon and I have been discussing the status of the WG with
our ADs.  The four of us do not believe that the charter extension
proposals presented to date are sufficiently complete, or widely
accepted by the WG, to justify new NETCONF work at this time.

As Bert stated at the WG meeting in Paris, the following goals have much
higher priority:
 - getting more implementations of the current document set
 - getting a show of buy-in from operators that they are
   indeed playing/testing with implementations
 - getting a nod/ack from operators that the protocol
   makes sense and will be used

We need to see operator buy-in before we go too far down this path, and
end up in the same situation as we ended up with SNMP. W.r.t. new work
by this WG, the ADs would like to see the proponents of such new work:

 - work hard on implementations of the current specs
 - show prototypes of implementations of the suggested
   enhancements
 - work hard on initial data modeling specs and show that
   there is convergence in thinking before we charter it.
   (remember the SMIng efforts? we do not want to end
    up in the same deadlock)
 - show prototype implementations of such data modeling work
   so we get a feel of what it is.

For all of the above, get operators to show interest and buy-in.

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: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:35:53 -0700

>you are interested in participating in discussions. 

I certainly don't object to the WG discussing notifications/events 
(don't want
to start a terminology debate now).    First there needs to be even the most
basic agreement on the feature requirements.  We started out just trying to
incorporate RFC 3195 (Reliable Delivery for syslog) into our BEEP transport
only, and that was dropped.

I assume we will design the notification PDU in a content-neutral 
(layered) fashion,
as we did with the <rpc> PDU.  I think if somebody designed and implemented
something, got operators/app-developers to use it, and wrote a draft 
documenting it,
we could proceed.  (If you remember back, that's what Juniper did with 
Junoscript,
even before the XMLCONF design team.)

>understandably gets interpreted badly by the chairs.

Yes - a lack of mailing list activity means people are not interested
enough at this time to write an email.

>strongly supported Netconf Events in the face to face meeting in Paris. 

What does this first sentence mean?
Did test participants start with a particular data model definition
to implement?  (I have to read the test report again).

>Sharon

Andy