IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com> Tue, 22 April 2008 21:14 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 B3A6C3A6BC4; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:14:53 -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 924903A6E6C; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 S0ZFSF-rAF5y; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from romeo.rtfm.com (unknown [74.95.2.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C97AE3A6D20; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from romeo.rtfm.com (localhost.rtfm.com [127.0.0.1]) by romeo.rtfm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11E165081A; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:18:26 -0700
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>
To: Bert Wijnen - IETF <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
In-Reply-To: <NIEJLKBACMDODCGLGOCNMEGNEMAA.bertietf@bwijnen.net>
References: <20080422210658.102D45081A@romeo.rtfm.com> <NIEJLKBACMDODCGLGOCNMEGNEMAA.bertietf@bwijnen.net>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/21.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Message-Id: <20080422211826.11E165081A@romeo.rtfm.com>
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
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

At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:10:53 +0200,
Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote:
> 
> W.r.t.
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> I do not think that forming a WG MANDATES a BOF.
> Several WGs have been formed (in the past) without a BOF.
>
> So pls do not depict a story as if a BOF is the only way how we
> reach consensus in IETF on teh question of forming a WG or not.

Yes, but when you have a BOF which doesn't come to consensus on
a technical direction, which is then shortly followed by a proposed
charter which *does* specify a technical direction, I think that's
a somewhat different story.

-Ekr



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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email