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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



W.r.t.
> All this is great stuff, but it all happened after the BOF, so
> you can't reasonably claim that it represents BOF consensus.
> And since BOFs are our primary mechanism for open, cross area
> assessment for WG formation, I don't think it's accurate to suggest
> that this is anywhere as near as open as actually having the
> discussion in the BOF and gettting consensus, nor is it a substitute
> for that.
> 

I do not think that forming a WG MANDATES a BOF.
Several WGs have been formed (in the past) without a BOF.

So pls do not depict a story as if a BOF is the only way how we
reach consensus in IETF on teh question of forming a WG or not.

Bert

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]