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

Michael Thomas <> Wed, 23 April 2008 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7F328C287; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC51F3A6A4F for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vTkjCsD8oVmq for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489EB3A6E3C for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 23 Apr 2008 08:39:58 -0700
Received: from ([]) by (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id m3NFMxFw015545; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:22:59 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:39:56 -0700
From: Michael Thomas <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv: Gecko/20080213 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andy Bierman <>
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
References: <> <008301c8a4ab$b9524a80$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1551; t=1208964179; x=1209828179; c=relaxed/simple; s=oregon; h=To:Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;;; z=From:=20Michael=20Thomas=20<> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20WG=20Review=3A=20NETCONF=20Data=20Model ing=20Language=20(netmod) |Sender:=20 |To:=20Andy=20Bierman=20<>; bh=rMLpYYBIxuC67PUobBMFkSoyBhg6OOKccFZt9iNxdao=; b=mdDts6x1EtyK3WWqgskQVQJQC3dhUi6lUOdoAM/sIKehnXaWzWhUUkLIju r/dBpWCHmAr8D75tvuAfAt45VXyPeP+EMDdEjGRYrlyNn6fvq6VWdbiXTRxk fyzdGV/jFI;
Authentication-Results:;; dkim=pass ( sig from verified; );
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Andy Bierman wrote:
> I don't think a formal WG process is needed to determine that
> the strongest consensus exists for the approach currently outlined
> in the charter.  The 15 people on the design team represented
> a wide cross section of those actually interested in this work.
> I am among the 10 - 15 people who were not involved in the design team,
> but agree with the charter.  That seems like a lot of consensus
> for this technical approach.

There seems to be a repeating pattern here where a large cross section
of interested people manage to either mostly hash out their differences
or are committed to grin and bear whatever the consensus is only to
be thwarted by a small set of (self) appointed Internet Earls with little
or no stake in the game. The IETF should be fostering getting that
upfront ego-deflation, etc, done ahead of working group formation,
IMO, as it makes for functional rather than dysfunctional working
groups. But as it stands right now, those Internet Earls pretty much
have veto power through extremely vague "We are not pleased"
proclamations which the would-be working  group has no means
of clearing except for throwing open the entire can of worms again
(and again and again). This really sucks and is extremely demoralizing to
those who have invested more than a reasonable amount of time
on the work. What's even worse is that all the exercise does is create
delay since there was nothing actionable about the Proclamation in
the first place.

          Mike, knitting
IETF mailing list