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

"Bert Wijnen - IETF" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> Tue, 22 April 2008 21:11 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 6FA1528C473; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:11:02 -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 81EAB28C45E for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:10:57 -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 WQgwqHH8Cwcx for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.versatel.net (relay.versatel.net [62.250.3.110]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6FB293A6ED1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 51944 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2008 21:10:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO bwMedion) (87.215.199.34) by relay.versatel.net with SMTP; 22 Apr 2008 21:10:51 -0000
From: "Bert Wijnen - IETF" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
To: "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@networkresonance.com>
Subject: RE: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:10:53 +0200
Message-ID: <NIEJLKBACMDODCGLGOCNMEGNEMAA.bertietf@bwijnen.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: <20080422210658.102D45081A@romeo.rtfm.com>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Importance: Normal
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, iesg@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

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.

Bert

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