Re: design team

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Andy Bierman" <ietf@andybierman.com>
...
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 9:08 AM
> Subject: Re: design team
...
> 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.

That *still* gives no special status to the work.  A design team is
merely that, no matter how it came into being.  If someone starts
treating the design team's output as somehow privileged, that
behaviour is not justified by IETF process.  As anyone who's been
around for a while surely knows, the output of a design team
isn't binding on anyone.

> 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.)

I certainly hope no one reads this as meaning that anyone should
*wait* for the design team.  Additional work identifying requirements
and refining solutions should continue apace, in my opinion.  The
design teams' work should be helpful to the BOF, but is no replacement
for other folks' homework.

> 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?

The logical conclusion of such a line of argument is that the
IETF should do nothing because we cannot prove that all our
solutions will be eternally useful.  However, I do agree that
it would be most helpful for *everyone* who has specific
requirements to state what they are.

> 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.

No one is proposing that we do this.

> 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.

While this would be nice, there are good reasons to be skeptical about
the feasability of such a thing.  The design team doesn't plan to even
try to do this, although the requirements from other application spaces
that do configuration will be worth perusing, to identify things applicable
in the netconf domain that may have gone unmentioned.

> > 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

Absolutely.  And I strongly encourage folks to speak up about their
requirements and use cases.

> Andy

Randy


--
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/>