To be clear, and for the benefit of anyone reading this who hasn't tracked
attendance at the various bofs & discussions, Eric was certainly not the
only (then) IAB member who had issues with the proposed approach.
And, due to the unavoidable collision of related sessions in our
multi-tracked IETF meetings, some of us were unable to attend the CANMOD
BoF in person.
But, here's what I'm still missing, having caught up with this whole thread:
At what point did it become unreasonable to respond to stated technical
issues with (pointers to) the resolution of those issues?
David Harrington's posts come closest, IMO, to providing those answers,
citing the approaches used in the many and varied meetings that have
occurred in the interim. I have absolutely no reason to doubt that they
were comprehensive. And, given that the known issues were discussed, it
would be helpful (as part of this review) to have pointers to some level of
succinct summary of what the reasoning was beyond "the proponents [continue
to] believe this is the right way to go". I'm thinking something like one
of: meeting minutes, e-mails, documents...
Note that I think this issue/discussion goes well beyond this particular
proposed working group. IMO, if the IETF is to be able to have focused WGs
while still supporting cross-area review, we need to be diligent in
reviewing, addressing, and closing issues in an open fashion.
Leslie.
--On April 22, 2008 11:16:02 PM +0200 Bert Wijnen - IETF
<bertietf(_at_)bwijnen(_dot_)net> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf