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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf