Merge branch 'main' of github.com:intarchboard/draft-iab-nemops-works…

…hop-report

draft-iab-nemops-workshop-report.md

@@ -397,7 +397,7 @@ Drawing from the experience of OpenConfig {{OPENCONFIG}}, {{SHAKIR}} emphasized
 
 ### Discussion
 
-The Session I open discussion highlighted the divergence between vendor implementations of YANG models and what is accessible via it, particularly when compared to CLI. Questions were raised about about how to implement the fast iterations and rapid changes characteristic within the IETF standards process [XXX: this seems backwards, the IETF is slow --Wes], particularly in comparison to the approach used by OpenConfig. Common challenges identified included lack of tooling, performance issues at scale, the steep learning curve for network management protocols/models/tools, initial difficulty in moving away from CLI, and the backward compatibility of models (versioning). Some participants suggested that the IETF should focus on system-level APIs that address specific problems. Additionally, the lack of simple tools for smaller networks operating under tight timelines and budgets was emphasized. A key question raised was whether the proliferation of protocols and languages complicates adoption, and if converging on a single approach would improve adoption. The existence of multiple schemas and protocols beyond NETCONF, such as BMP and IPFIX, to address network management challenges beyond configuration is an established reality. One conclusion was that a mechanism was needed to interconnect and harmonize these schemas to provide a cohesive and comprehensive understanding of the data.
+The Session I open discussion highlighted the divergence between vendor implementations of YANG models and what is accessible via it, particularly when compared to CLI. Questions were raised about how to incorporate fast iteration and rapid changes within the established IETF process and culture, especially in contrast to the approach used by OpenConfig. Common challenges identified included lack of tooling, performance issues at scale, the steep learning curve for network management protocols/models/tools, initial difficulty in moving away from CLI, and the backward compatibility of models (versioning). Some participants suggested that the IETF should focus on system-level APIs that address specific problems. Additionally, the lack of simple tools for smaller networks operating under tight timelines and budgets was emphasized. A key question raised was whether the proliferation of protocols and languages complicates adoption, and if converging on a single approach would improve adoption. The existence of multiple schemas and protocols beyond NETCONF, such as BMP and IPFIX, to address network management challenges beyond configuration is an established reality. One conclusion was that a mechanism was needed to interconnect and harmonize these schemas to provide a cohesive and comprehensive understanding of the data.
 
 ## Session II: Present (identified problems & requirements) {#present}