RE: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)

Eric,

instead of discussing if there was consensus AT THE BOF
(we all know that at this point in time we DO have 
consensus between all the interested WORKERS in this space, 
albeit that the current consensus was arrived at in further
(smaller) meetings, in extensive DT work after the IETF and
again after review on NGO list).

I propose that you list (again) your (technical) objections
to the the current proposal. If all you can tell us is that
we need to spend just more cycles on re-hashing the pros
and cons of many possible approaches, then I do not
see the usefulness of that discussion and with become 
silent and leave your opion as one input to the IESG for
their decision making process.

Bert Wijnen

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]Namens Eric
Rescorla
Verzonden: dinsdag 22 april 2008 23:14
Aan: David Partain
CC: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Onderwerp: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)


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

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf