Re: OPSAREA - preliminary minutes of the Hiroshima sessionuploaded

David Harrington wrote:
...
> I don't think IESG commitment is that important. I think market
> commitment is important. I think addressing real market needs is
> important. I think we need to start the discussion to understand what
> the emerging needs are so we can begin to address them.
> 

Why would the market gravitate towards a standard
that is just standard operations on proprietary
data models?

That is what I meant by a 5 year plan.
Is there going to be any standard data models
(like ipfix-psamp.yang) actually deployed?
If so, is there some coherence to the collective
set of YANG modules published by the IETF?

If a domain-specific WG like IPFIX WG needs common
data modeling components (like an interfaces table),
then are they going to wait for that work, do it themselves,
invent some interim hack, or what?

Isn't it up to the IESG to make sure the protocols they
approve have some development plan, or at least a stated direction
wrt/ protocol work being deployed over a long period of time?

The market is already using SNMP and NETCONF for
proprietary data models.  Nobody needs YANG for that.
Now that the IETF is developing YANG, there is some
expectation that the IETF will do something with it.

>>
>> Andy
>>

>>> David Harrington

Andy