Re: [netconf] Regarding 108 adoption hums

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Fri, 07 August 2020 23:13 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF7C3A0985 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 JJJnyE3zHEUr for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 253BD3A08E1 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id v9so3844515ljk.6 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 16:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=8Zgyr1yq4t0MKNG+XoJM9T+ZUKa3xqzXX0/Lhh8ROWI=; b=w/b2hT950Z9jGCYOj6691w7GwDEI+fS+y82JwzL9D4M3EQdSbF/zkxEKaCWDiP71qO EWrdujMZiv8jlDgYK+LaWEciB5K/l+n1AIxeUzeIbFD8kIzQJZKzQPWA9UPm3MEYLIAD Iipv74wrQ9YidBothAREVomRszWbBzfEcK5eFLT0I0ZFR1+cmsow28OSRAM6nvw7iUXP RY9qq42gBC5w1gPaQchgiKQrtle2EU9nuWimV6Phq9Cq881SgL8wsiEZGvklpdId5Snq UK38jO+VIjO4br++fAJToo4Z54NkOejLG+VsgJ+jY4nGi8RDafmC2Cq7LTWnHCFNSriq 3CpQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=8Zgyr1yq4t0MKNG+XoJM9T+ZUKa3xqzXX0/Lhh8ROWI=; b=g0bp41WCwpbU7T4paQ6reRakv4QmhIWakTyU3v1i6GPBl8jYZTXEYam/dfJiBNR96P GTrdxPS53re4JyAHuVJcu2METFNj+GWgAupoVspC4CUuTLcOoCj0Ezulq9hiTAXQr/+Q wUvM7PyyyPjPPN0Ye/afINRGsu9EdRTNhHfJ4DrSDlcB6CcBRvNrU7Y8QNZzyo+4slKM awADWPnDn0fkB+91T/O6edBXzwureKwdxoTSf0g9TnrWGluU9bxQ3rwF8d+U7syZZdp+ Nw2Yx1MUAw357ptq9P8VtE2EiB0S5lbR/aB2EBwd+R5uvP1dIlkJrRLdjgaQxcMfvCVP zVhA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532wjmDMogmO37AlHqTnnj9r+Jg7MiEEb+sVNm5G0vzGSHJE6VXF YT4nep4ydhAZD5VAVdC9HfcJpZ4VRcnnc5BulmpTXmAX
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx07+pB9ak8DoOeLx1kGc7EDeitSMDrhh3WEWbqiDVXpH7fJRjLtIdKgbckW4W6BuWhnNXC2p/yQREY6/9EVn8=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9dd0:: with SMTP id x16mr7008015ljj.144.1596842007008; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 16:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <01000173c0afb995-d6003a0a-edbd-4113-b3e6-9092d30ec2a7-000000@us-east-1.amazonses.com> <00cf01d66c99$07392530$15ab6f90$@olddog.co.uk> <20200807091715.vzglsinbh76ox6kz@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
In-Reply-To: <20200807091715.vzglsinbh76ox6kz@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:13:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHTSNwq6zz2nAPkjMH_BPnM9HpbK7zE-tGWh772UH_y9=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000097346905ac51c050"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/GYGXZ-varGoQfRQNBbohd8ug_I8>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Regarding 108 adoption hums
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 23:13:31 -0000

Hi,


On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:17 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:

> Adrian,
>
> technical discussion of the drafts on the mailing list would help more
> than having process meta-discussions. It is good to know who (other
> than the authors) is volunteering to substantially review the drafts,
> is willing to contribute to the discussions of any issues, and is
> planning to implement the technology defined in the drafts as this
> will likely help the chairs to make a decision.
>


IMO it makes more sense to discuss what problems the NETCONF/NETMOD WGs
should be solving, rather than adoption of solutions to problems. The WG
should be
finishing up configured notifications. Try to standardize binary telemetry
instead
of just leaving placeholders for proprietary vendor solutions.

Your questions are most relevant because we do not have any clear definition
or "support" or "oppose" for adoption of a draft.
Support often means "I am happy for you to work on this draft".
The culture of the IETF creates a strong bias against anybody actually
opposing adoption of anything. Usual attitude: "Let people experiment.
Maybe they will
come up with something good in the end."

If only the co-authors support, and nobody opposes, then the work will get
stuck.
Often WGs adopt after such a poll outcome and act surprised a year later
when
the draft goes nowhere.


Andy






> /js
>
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 09:59:15AM +0100, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > Hi chairs,
> >
> > I think this is an interesting approach to determining whether there is
> interest in a number of drafts at the same time, and I agree with you that
> a hum at a working group meeting means nothing without confirming the
> opinion on the mailing list.
> >
> > But I'm worried that you may be introducing yet another piece of process
> into how we process documents.
> >
> > The adoption poll, itself, is not necessary if it is obvious to the
> chairs that a draft is within charter and has support [RFC7221]. But in
> addition to the poll, we also have somehow introduced an IPR poll at
> adoption time (while I can see the merits of being explicit about IPR, and
> we have seen one or two people attempt to wriggle out of their
> responsibilities, it seems unnecessary to serialize the two calls). Now you
> appear to be introducing an additional step to test "adoption suitability".
> >
> > Can I urge you (strongly? :-) to consider the responses to you adoption
> suitability tests and, if they are solid, to move straight to adoption
> without making the working group go though a prolonged series of polls. We
> would, I think, prefer to get on with the work!
> >
> > Best,
> > Adrian
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: netconf <netconf-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> > Sent: 05 August 2020 23:13
> > To: netconf@ietf.org
> > Subject: [netconf] Regarding 108 adoption hums
> >
> >
> > NETCONF WG,
> >
> >
> > The Chairs & AD discussed the results of the various adoption hums
> conducted during the 108 meeting.  There is a sense that the results didn’t
> adequately determine if the drafts should be adopted.  In particular, it
> wasn’t clear if the hums reflected a general desire to solve the problem or
> support for the particular draft.
> >
> > As such, we’ve decided to send subsequent emails for each draft, or set
> of drafts if appropriate, to solicit input on following questions:
> >
> >     1) is the problem important for the NETCONF WG to solve?
> >     2) is the draft a suitable basis for the work?
> >
> >
> > NETCONF Chairs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netconf mailing list
> > netconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netconf mailing list
> > netconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>