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

At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:14:10 +0200,
Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote:
> 
> Eric....
> 
> REALLY... ????

Yes, really.

> I heard during that BOF that there was consensus to start the work.
> I also saw that quite a few liked the YANG proposal, and several
> wanted to have mappings to either XSD or RELAX or DSDL.

I don't remember any consensus call, hum, or anything else
being taken on protocol selection. Rather, I remember there being
presentations with questions and minimal discussion.

> The smaller meetings that happened after the NOF, included people
> from all of the proposals that were on the table, including people
> who were in teh Design Team for the requirements. We had
> fruitfull discussions that converged onto a single approach.
> 
> We then got all the people from the various proposls together on
> the rdcml mailing list (the one that was used by the requirements
> design team), and we had a 2 week long discussion with multiple
> hundereds of emails and opinions, and again, we converged to a
> common and acceptable draft WG charter.
> 
> That draft WG charter was then put to the NGO mailing list were
> we had further discussion with various other people. Again we seem
> to have consensus. Several non-original-netconf people are on
> that mailing list, as a result of the BOF discussions we have had
> in the past thow IETF meetings.

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.

> Further, the change you propose to the WG charter, could be done,.
> and then in the first WG session we could declare victory for the
> milestone you want. I believe that virtually all of the interested
> people were involved in the discussion sofar. So I do not see why
> we would need long in a newly formed WG to come to the same
> conclusion again.

Perhaps that's true, but I don't see that that's an argument
against actually running an open process rather than declaring
a winner in advance and asking the IETF to ratify it.

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