Rough consensus among WHOM?

Dave Crocker <> Wed, 23 April 2008 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879E63A6944; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21FC13A6ABC for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MmyWxWpurq20 for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E343A68DC for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by ( with ESMTP id m3NF65ZP026271 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:06:05 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:06:58 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Rough consensus among WHOM?
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-SongbirdInformation: for more information
X-Songbird: Clean
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


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...


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
IETF mailing list