Rough consensus among WHOM?

Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Wed, 23 April 2008 15:07 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 879E63A6944; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:07:20 -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 21FC13A6ABC for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 MmyWxWpurq20 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.songbird.com (mail.songbird.com [208.184.79.10]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E343A68DC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.4] (adsl-67-127-190-96.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.190.96]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m3NF65ZP026271 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:06:05 -0700
Message-ID: <480F5092.2000607@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:06:58 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Rough consensus among WHOM?
References: <NIEJLKBACMDODCGLGOCNCEGOEMAA.bertietf@bwijnen.net>
In-Reply-To: <NIEJLKBACMDODCGLGOCNCEGOEMAA.bertietf@bwijnen.net>
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird: Clean
X-Songbird-From: dhc2@dcrocker.net
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

Folks,

The exchange over netmod was one of the more pragmatic and encouraging threads 
I've seen in the IETF in a very long time.  I think it crystallized the core 
criteria that ought to drive the decision for chartering a group.

Rather than filter them through my own re-wording, here are the tidbits that I 
think stated things quite nicely:


Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote:
> 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,


Andy Bierman wrote:
> 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.


David Partain wrote:
> 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's my point? That everyone who cares about this work and is engaged
>  in it _does_ agree that we have consensus to move forward in this
> direction, that there has been public scrutiny of the proposal, and that
> it's time to move on.


Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote:
 > 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...

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf