Re: design team

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> (resending with correct netconf address and full team membership)
>
> Following the discussions in Vancouver we are creating a design team to work on Requirements for
> a Configuration Data Modeling Language (RCDML) with participation from OPS and APPS.
>
> The principal goal of the design team activity is to increase the chances for a successful BOF
> in Philadelphia which should decide on what needs to be done to standardize data models for
> configuration in the IETF with focus on the immediate requirements for the NETCONF protocol. We
> recommend that in order to expedite the process the team will look at the existing requirements
> for data modeling languages coming from the various teams working on new solutions or reusing
> existing data modeling languages and tools, identify the common set of requirements and the
> principal specific requirements that led to each one of the solutions. The focus of the
> requirements should be on the immediate needs of the OPS area and NETCONF protocol, and should
> use precedent work done in the area as RFC 3535, but take into consideration the need for
> extensibility and the opportunity of providing one data modeling language solution for different
> other IETF problems in APPS and other area like application servers, so that any solution that
> is engaged does not preclude the extensibility and broader applicability.


I would like to object to this charter text.
The name of the presumed BoF (CDML) means Configuration DML, not NETCONF DML.
This implies that the IESG thinks that all configuration is the same,
and any sort of application with configurable parameters of any sort
could use the same data modeling language, regardless of the configuration
protocol being used (if any).

This last phrase is rather vague and open-ended:
   ...opportunity of providing one data modeling language solution for different
   other IETF problems in APPS and other area like application servers, so that
   any solution that is engaged does not preclude the extensibility and broader
   applicability

This sure looks like a "boil the ocean" kind of charter.
Does this include my Apache configuration? bind config? Windows hosts?  Printers?
Is '/sbin/ifconfig' an application included in the charter?

I was at the IAB NM workshop that led to RFC 3535.
The operators made it clear at that meeting they did not
mix router/switch configuration with 'desktop support',
and did not ask for anything of the sort.


> Team leader is Randy Presuhn whom we thank for accepting this task and we welcome back as an
> active participant in the IETF. We trust that his experience and expertise will be of great
> help. Members in the team will be Martin Björklund, Sharon Chisholm, Alex Clemm, Rohan Mahy,
> Chris Newman,  and David Partain
>
> As time frame we suggest that the team targets February 15, 2008 as a date for the principal
> deliverable which should be an Internet-Draft with a taxonomy of RDCML to be used as entry and
> reference at a CDML BOF at IETF 71 in Philadelphia.
>
> We wish success to the team and Happy Holidays for all.
>
> Ron and Dan


Andy

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