At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:00:53 +0200,
David Partain wrote:
Greetings,
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 18.10.10 Eric Rescorla wrote:
I object to the formation of this WG with this charter.
For those who haven't been involved in the discussions to date, Eric has
objected to this work from the very beginning, as far back as the first
attempt to get a BOF and has continued to object since that time. As such,
I'm not surprised that he objects now.
Of course, since the issues I was concerned about from the very
beginning remain.
While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest
in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical
direction.
Not surprisingly, I disagree.
Well, it's not really like this is a matter of opinion, since
the minutes are pretty clear that no consensus calls on the
choice of technology were taken, only that some work
in this area should move forward:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/minutes/canmod.txt
The O&M community in the IETF has been talking about this specific topic for
a
long time, both in official and unofficial settings. We've had many hours of
meetings where people from all various viewpoints have had hashed out their
differences. This all culminated during the last IETF in a rather strong
sense of consensus amongst those most interested in this work that it's time
to stop talking and move forward, and that YANG was the best way to do that.
No, not everyone agreed, but we DO have rough consensus in the O&M community
and with the APPS area people who were involved that this was a reasonable
approach forward.
So, what about this consensus thing?
Sometimes ADs have to make a call, and my take is that Dan & Ron did so.
They
asked people representing ALL of the proposals to work on a proposal for a
charter. We spent a great many cycles doing exactly that. All of the
proposals that you saw presented at the CANMOD BOF were very active in the
charter proposal discussions and the result is the consensus of all of those
people. No one got exactly what they wanted, but I think everyone felt is
was a reasonable way forward. So, we have consensus amongst the various
proposals' authors.
The sum of all this verbiage is that, precisely as I said, there
wasn't consensus at the BOF, but that there was some set of rump
meetings where this compromise was hashed out.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf