At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:17:47 -0600,
Randy Presuhn wrote:
Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology
choices at the CANMOD BOF. Our original proposal for consensus
hums included getting a of sense of preferences among the various
proposals. We were told we could *not* ask these questions, for fear
of upsetting Eric Rescorla.
Well, it's certainly true that the terms--agreed to by the IESG and
the IAB--on which the BOF were held were that there not be a beauty
contest at the BOF but that there first be a showing that there was
consensus to do work in this area at all. I'm certainly willing to cop
to being one of the people who argued for that, but I was far
from the only one. If you want to blame me for that, go ahead.
In any case, now that consensus to do *something* has been
established it is the appropriate time to have discussion on
the technology. I certainly never imagined that just because
there weren't hums taken in PHL that that meant no hums would
ever be taken.
(It's unclear to me why his perspectives
on configuration management information models should be subject to
special consideration, while the folk who have been doing
active work and real products in this area over the last two decades
are largely ignored.)
Given that the BOF was in fact held and the WG is now being
proposed, "largely ignored" isn't quite the way I would characterize
the situation.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf