RE: design team

["Bert Wijnen - IETF" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>]

In Vancouver, I objected quite a bit to doing a "requirements phase".
I am OK with doing a Design Team approach to that. With a clear deadline
of Feb 15 that would be OK and limit the open-ended-ness. I must say
that the charter text does not state it as a "clear deadline", but rather
as a "target". I hope that the intention is that it is a SERIOUS DEADLINE.

The text of the charter also speaks about "focus on NETCONF requirements"
as per thsi text:

   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.

And as you can see, it also mentions RFC3535.
But I sort have to agree with Andy that already do we see text in here
that asks for "externsibility and the opportunity ...."
That is where I worry. Now... given the limited time the DT has,
they can't really boil the ocean. And if they do not FOCUS on NETCONF
requirements, then they will miss their target of 15 feb or they
will fail. I indeed hope thtat the DT will STAY FOCUSED and in addition
I hope that when the DT finishes, that we do not go through endless
discussions (as has been done for so many other "requirements phases"
in the IETF).

With that, I would Go DT Go! Show us you can do it!


Bert Wijnen

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org]Namens Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Verzonden: zaterdag 22 december 2007 0:04
> Aan: Andy Bierman
> CC: netconf@ops.ietf.org; Randy Presuhn; mbj@tail-f.com; alex@cisco.com;
> Rohan Mahy; Chris Newman; David Partain; Ron Bonica; Lisa Dusseault;
> Sharon Chisholm
> Onderwerp: RE: design team
>
>
> Andy,
>
> I would not spend to much time with exact wordsmithing, because
> this is not really a 'charter'.  A design team does not need an
> IESG approved charter. This wording rather reflects the
> discussions that we as ADs had in Vancouver and what I believe
> the participants in these discussions agreed would be a good way
> to help a BOF in Philadelphia have more chances to be successful
> by identifying what are the agreed requirements and what are the
> requirements that are different. If you want to discuss the words
> however, the last phrase that you quote and consider 'open-ended'
> starts with a clear statement that 'the focus of the requirements
> should be on the immediate needs of the OPS area and NETCONF protocol'.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf@andybierman.com]
> > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 8:56 PM
> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org; Randy Presuhn; mbj@tail-f.com;
> > alex@cisco.com; Rohan Mahy; Chris Newman; David Partain; Ron
> > Bonica; Lisa Dusseault; Sharon Chisholm
> > Subject: Re: design team
> >
> > 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/>
>


--
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/>