Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 27 February 2020 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C54403A09EB; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:28:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KYwEgq-4cQ2B; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 337773A09E6; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48T2kl08Wtz1ntn3; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:27:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1582831679; bh=dQ8ex5SMv4OPugd02piepyqTnJNkgB3zFv+ackKJQlE=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=nwX7qxm7H4bj10bLTcDrKoQ+nj0lihocSiQmIEzQSazyNN3JJM5EZRXlOy7ImZKTA ZIICxL5plhGbifrr9v0J2EaXkHjCVgLFEumRu+ehkHY/MM8U3DzxgNAIiosEIE9awp YPsW3wtZqsdHvQoBmsUd89ew2sWsp5xx/jA1c9I0=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [10.47.230.213] (unknown [213.50.241.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48T2kh66DYz1nscX; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:27:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
References: <F88E3F76-DD4B-4807-A458-85FABFF20D96@gmail.com> <5D218BFB-0D6F-4F7D-858F-B571A67DC47F@leddy.net> <CAHw9_iJ_ipEvU0NUx44XbK0_DrLe_GRw6G=m+chK4wZcRP8BMg@mail.gmail.com> <ACA082A4-BC78-4C63-9F91-5C9A44F47642@cisco.com> <b693c244-95f9-473e-de21-166393280d18@gmail.com> <CAHw9_iL6oM73JnSU1QL0+PRohSH6sEskD=enH7QsPrWiUfStDg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMGQqoMXnU-VAjx_PTL-ObbsXTYqhjwuQG6eDxfCwmyJ9g@mail.gmail.com> <30908949-9150-4784-A0FD-69F92889FB3D@fugue.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <b5cbd567-bfa3-c803-d3d2-025cbcbccfd8@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:27:54 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <30908949-9150-4784-A0FD-69F92889FB3D@fugue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/nNJbW1RQwP_D9rOcBRTo2HIFkG4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:28:01 -0000

THere is one nuance that is worth noting.  It is not for the case of a 
controversial document.

Rather, the case where +1 can be useful is when the question is whether 
the working group even cares about the document.  I have had several 
cases of calls for adoption or WG last call where there was almost no 
response on the mailing list.  In the absence of decent indication, I as 
chair feel compleed to say "no, I do not see enough support to adopt / 
advance / ... this document".
In that situation, even +1s can help.  (And yes, I do watch for the case 
of all the +1s coming from the same company as the author, and then 
start judging whether they are folks who participate, along the lines 
Warren outlined.)

Yours,
Joel

On 2/27/2020 2:07 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2020, at 1:59 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net 
> <mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> wrote:
>> It is very unfortunate that IETF does not have a good way of 
>> retrieving judgement from real group of folks who understand given 
>> proposal. 
> 
> We do.   It’s called “substantive comments.”
> 
>> "+1" is just only one demonstration of it. Humming is another. Raising 
>> hands one more. We say there is no voting but while there is no formal 
>> ballot box nor even e-ballot version of it all of the above ways to 
>> gather "consensus" are examples of voting. 
> 
> Actually, the purpose of humming is not to make a decision, but to 
> figure out whether there is general consensus.   If you ask for a hum 
> and you get a 50-50 response, there probably isn’t consensus, and you 
> might just say “we don’t have consensus” and go on to figuring out how. 
>    If the “no” hum has no loud participants, you might say “looks like 
> we’re good to go, we’ll confirm on the list.”   If there’s someone 
> humming loudly no when everybody else is in favor, and you don’t know 
> why they’re humming that way, that’s a good time to ask them if they are 
> willing to explain.
> 
> But bear in mind that humming does not take place on the mailing list, 
> and that consensus is called on the mailing list, not in the room.
> 
> On the mailing list, people pretty much have to raise objections 
> verbally.  No amount of +1s should be considered meaningful at all.   
> The work is chartered; the wg is supposed to do it.   If there are no 
> objections, and people feel the document is ready, then it should move 
> forward, whether there are +1s or not.   If objections are raised, and 
> they are substantive (that is, not opinion or conjecture), then they 
> have to be addressed.   They can be addressed by saying “we considered 
> that, and the working group as a whole agrees that the problem exists, 
> but it doesn’t need to be addressed because this document is only 
> applicable in a situation where the objection raised doesn’t matter.” 
>   Or it can add text to address the objection, as Brian I think has 
> suggested.   Or it can do additional work to address the problem, as 
> Brian has also suggested.
> 
> But the WG can’t simply ignore the objection.  That is not what “rough 
> consensus” means.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>