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@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx]Namens Eric >> Rescorla >> Verzonden: dinsdag 22 april 2008 23:14 >> Aan: David Partain >> CC: iesg@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx >> 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@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > _______________________________________________ > IETF mailing list > IETF@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf