IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [103attendees] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-elkschul-conflict-problem-00.txt

nalini elkins <nalini.elkins@e-dco.com> Thu, 08 November 2018 09:10 UTC

Return-Path: <nalini.elkins@e-dco.com>
X-Original-To: 103attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 103attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068CF130DEB for <103attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 01:10:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=e-dco-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q23z_tMOwX28 for <103attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 01:10:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41C97130E46 for <103attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 01:10:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id j4-v6so17285755ljc.12 for <103attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Nov 2018 01:10:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=e-dco-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=R7/aYvhUcD2AtUZt2TIU/eP7Zq63YpYLFR4CX1ABYYg=; b=pyjr9Ag3k8YnQmJAfDb5G2hl0tQYAi3atzdXxqeUombC2Gm3az49lvGtvtsNCeqMFe uyDocAjLz6brOhGODcFSIA+K9kxxNCPYjmcrWkcGQv8jZjAsL40+C6p1GAFYomAecM3a +pdKKONLhSyw67pxXpgg7iOM21gYK/F09UdpywrO5adN2oNd9Z3Ptmex4zYUg5ZoxnMM CY5BVNkBs8eigNLi+NCGX4GguE5miH6EguGNu7vXBrxWAnYhGSTMoIki/qKlSOdqXKnv ZVf0xOyeRChPf9ampKNRLycaJfY71ZPghS5QekROnZT84ahOxEgaEDr5zsW5c/6nCJ5A cjLg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=R7/aYvhUcD2AtUZt2TIU/eP7Zq63YpYLFR4CX1ABYYg=; b=E5h9yKX7AzBIeN6khbL4tLvA21G30a2mDBdxWT7lcLDRWWRYpIXYpB77fHeg1cNV/c dWd1K9GlVyp+cttaYfzSdJJDxwoBizRpsOJ+ln3fXbeXQBT7DUZZ4MCTFVYPiaNtgn6T uCr/L10FGnFZLcJyiT70uvlz9Ry07ny9CcZb6bGaO/h7HU1u/aNFhJoRyhwmtpf29jte e4V3NLyF4aYkgwO4sJSR5elI8j+cbEIQ5Q157a9IpierlSX3W+qvYnrRzFPWubTiWosO WrXgBbNd5Ov8npL40cKB+QHmDA+mmHnMycuaB1XvubO0dBwVssp5wcS3ViPMMEEKm7HZ zfaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gIXUg1R17YEjSNr2pJnZBD2eby7Hx7MZaNO6tIgaVYW2glVRjIc bPbzxn5L9DHA+1Y95Rt/5CPlc1uHEcWYIjyPTQRrtg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fT4luzD68glzssGKIG2UoCRO2MYZSz43Et7kJouIE6r0Yx2A+TjThJYc+crMtNHeLVlHBfW7EEYLsmOQl9New=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b1ca:: with SMTP id e10-v6mr2541329lja.16.1541668198234; Thu, 08 Nov 2018 01:09:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a05:6504:60d:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 01:09:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1kLoUsBbMKyT-9wmNZsqXPrj9NJZ1Nhxk6cXh82jy-OyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <154164679197.26360.2304672742129507952.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAPsNn2UfTNg-XLgmWXyn74rJy0WpQ+hf53SkyUQ6VcbQ-NOsVA@mail.gmail.com> <1C5D55AC-F021-406E-A67C-4BB00671776C@akamai.com> <CAPsNn2UEs9OzOVR8vT5gNCsX6LhJ7gOwT-PNaO6Y-Wq4ZnU7Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1kLoUsBbMKyT-9wmNZsqXPrj9NJZ1Nhxk6cXh82jy-OyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: nalini elkins <nalini.elkins@e-dco.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 16:09:57 +0700
Message-ID: <CAPsNn2VVzT6edBHykwznvMy90jB9Gr9QHf9m59dC7Gqangezpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, 103attendees@ietf.org, hgs@cs.columbia.edu
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000514e99057a23997e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/103attendees/cR9z6fRgsRI0au3fMenmTO4Abrs>
Subject: Re: [103attendees] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-elkschul-conflict-problem-00.txt
X-BeenThere: 103attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list of IETF 103 attendees that have opted in on this list <103attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/103attendees>, <mailto:103attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/103attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:103attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:103attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/103attendees>, <mailto:103attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 09:10:06 -0000

 > "pointing out some places where it does not work well" is repudiating
it.   The places you're pointing out are not places where rough consensus
doesn't work well.   They
> are how rough consensus is reached (or not reached).   Not getting
consensus is a valid outcome of a process.   If every process were required
to reach consensus, we
> would publish a lot of mistakes.

OK.  I see what the issue is.   What I mean to say is that the process of
rough consensus leaves hard feelings and there is likely a way to do it
better.   We will give possible solutions in the next draft.   I am not
against rough consensus.

I have also been talking to various people who are / have been WG chairs
about how they do things and how they have seen things play out in
reality.

But, I think we should have this discussion on the IETF list.  I will move
the discussion to there.

Nalini

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> Nalini, "pointing out some places where it does not work well" is
> repudiating it.   The places you're pointing out are not places where rough
> consensus doesn't work well.   They are how rough consensus is reached (or
> not reached).   Not getting consensus is a valid outcome of a process.   If
> every process were required to reach consensus, we would publish a lot of
> mistakes.
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:00 PM nalini elkins <nalini.elkins@e-dco.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > I am not sure where the best place to discuss this draft is, but I am
>> pretty sure that a mailing list of a subset of folks who are attending the
>> current IETF meeting is most
>>
>> > definitely **not** the best place.
>>
>>
>> How about the IETF-discuss list?  Any suggestions?
>>
>>
>> > I also share Ted’s concern that there is an implied repudiation of
>> “rough consensus” in this draft, and we would all be better served if it
>> were made explicit.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not sure how that is coming about.  I really did not have any
>> intention of repudiating "rough consensus".  Just pointing out some places
>> where it does not work well.  I am actually confused about why people are
>> reading it this way.
>>
>>
>> Nalini
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am not sure where the best place to discuss this draft is, but I am
>>> pretty sure that a mailing list of a subset of folks who are attending the
>>> current IETF meeting is most definitely **not** the best place.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also share Ted’s concern that there is an implied repudiation of
>>> “rough consensus” in this draft, and we would all be better served if it
>>> were made explicit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Nalini Elkins
>> President
>> Enterprise Data Center Operators
>> www.e-dco.com
>>
>> --
>> 103attendees mailing list
>> 103attendees@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/103attendees
>>
>


-- 
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
President
Enterprise Data Center Operators
www.e-dco.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email