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

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 23 April 2008 07:39 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14EA93A6AAB; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3136F3A6921 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ofvZgOqtLYEk for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CDA13A6C6C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CD37259789 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:39:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06262-02 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:39:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [172.28.60.80] (unknown [195.18.164.170]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAAE7259740 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:39:13 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <480EE7A1.5090408@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:39:13 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14ubu (X11/20080306)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
References: <20080422211401.303175081A@romeo.rtfm.com> <NIEJLKBACMDODCGLGOCNCEGOEMAA.bertietf@bwijnen.net> <20080422215641.09FD05081A@romeo.rtfm.com> <004101c8a4df$d7bfe980$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <20080423035508.ED17E5081A@romeo.rtfm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080423035508.ED17E5081A@romeo.rtfm.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Eric Rescorla wrote:
> At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:17:47 -0600,
> Randy Presuhn wrote:
>   
>> Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology
>> choices at the CANMOD BOF.  Our original proposal for consensus
>> hums included getting a of sense of preferences among the various
>> proposals.  We were told we could *not* ask these questions, for fear
>> of upsetting Eric Rescorla. 
>>     
>
> Well, it's certainly true that the terms--agreed to by the IESG and
> the IAB--on which the BOF were held were that there not be a beauty
> contest at the BOF but that there first be a showing that there was
> consensus to do work in this area at all. I'm certainly willing to cop
> to being one of the people who argued for that, but I was far
> from the only one. If you want to blame me for that, go ahead.
>
> In any case, now that consensus to do *something* has been 
> established it is the appropriate time to have discussion on 
> the technology. I certainly never imagined that just because
> there weren't hums taken in PHL that that meant no hums would
> ever be taken.
It's been a month since PHL.

The IETF's supposed to be able to work on mailing lists between 
meetings, including being able to work when no WG exists - which of 
course means working on mailing lists that are not WG lists.

I congratulate the participants who worked on the charter on managing to 
have the discussion and come to consensus on an approach. I think it's 
up to Eric to demonstrate to the IESG that there's support in the 
community for disagreeing with the consensus of the discussing participants.

                 Harald


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