Re: design team

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>  
>  
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder 
> > [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] 
> > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 1:35 PM
> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Cc: Bert Wijnen - IETF; Andy Bierman; 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
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 11:30:47AM +0100, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> >
> > > If there is no draft to use as a reference for requirements in 
> > > Philadelphia a BOF the chances for success are much 
> > lessened IMO. The 
> > > submission deadline for 00 drafts is February 18.
> > I hope the BoF at the IETF 71 will focus on discussing 
> > solutions addressing the requirements.  Your messages worry 
> > me because they can be read like there will be a requirements 
> > discussion at IETF 71, which means another 3-4 months of lost 
> > time. In other words, we not only need a deadline for the 
> > design team output, we also need a clear deadline for the 
> > solutions input so that at the IETF 71 a decision can be taken.
> >
> > /js
>
> The design team role is exactly to make much of the work about
> requirements in advance, before Philadelphia, so that at Philadelphia we
> do not start from zero and argue again about requirements. So let us
> give it a chance. 

But the design team has been formed by the IESG, and given a set
of criteria by the IESG, for creating the measuring stick by which
the candidate proposals will be judged.

If there are specific applications server requirements that the
Configuration Data Modeling WG needs to address, then they need
to be identified and discussed.  (We will let the design team
have a chance to write specific requirements.)

If there are no specific application server requirements, then
the discussion of solution proposals cannot be very objective.
How can somebody prove that a solution will or will not meet
some unspecified extensibility needs in the future?

I am objecting to the very notion that the NETCONF WG should
compromise the DML needed ASAP for standard NETCONF data models,
for some unspecified 'maybe others will find a use for this someday'
kind of requirements.

If specific WGs (from any area) want a DML very similar in nature
to what the NETCONF WG is pursuing, and domain experts are willing
to help throughout the entire process, then I totally support a combined
solution, instead of N solutions.



> Nobody prevents people who work on solutions to work in parallel to
> improve and bring their solutions in best shape for Philadelphia as
> (Internet-Draft, tools, software).
>
> 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/>