At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:08:49 -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Eric Rescorla wrote: > > I object to the formation of this WG with this charter. > > > > 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. Rather, a number of proposals were presented, but no > > strawpoll, hum, or sense of the room was taken, nor, as far as I can > > determine, has there been any such consensus call been taken on any > > list I'm aware of. This wasn't an accident--the BOF was explicitly > > intended only to determine whether some work in this area should > > proceed, not to select a technical approach. > > > > I understand that an approach like this was proposed in the OPSAREA > > meeting by Chris Newman and then that there was a breakout meeting > > where it was discussed further. The minutes don't record any consensus > > call on this combined direction (only strawpolls on the individual > > proposals), and even if such a consensus call had been held, the > > OPSAREA meeting would not be the appropriate place for it: this > > discussion needs to happen in either the BOF (to allow cross-area > > review) or in the designated WG, when it is formed. > > > > > I believe there was consensus in the CANMOD BoF that > the requirements were sufficiently understood, and > the purpose of that BoF had been fulfilled. Agreed. > After the CANMOD BoF, a 15 person design team was formed, > which reached consensus on a technical approach, embodied > in the charter text. There was also unanimous agreement > on the charter, outside the design team (on the NGO mailing list). Neither of these has any formal standing. The precise reason we have BOFs is to have these discussions in person at IETF. > > Accordingly, if this WG is to be formed, the entire section (and > > corresponding milestones) which specifies the technology needs to be > > removed. Rather, the first work item should be to select a technical > > approach. > > I thought the charter text did specify a technical approach, > which is to utilize YANG as a high-level DML and map YANG > constructs to DSDL and XSD. Yes, that's what I'm objecting to, since that's far from the only technical approach. For instance, one could just use DSDL or XSD without YANG. > Can you explain this work item further? Uh, have a charter that doesn't specify the technical approach and then have an open discussion in the WG meetings followed by selection of a technical approach. Compare, for instance, the process that P2PSIP is engaging in now. -Ekr _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf