Re: [netconf] Regarding 108 adoption hums

[Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>]

The working group should not function as a rubber stamp for proprietary solutions and academic work.
We should not ask for the working group adoption, if the solution does not have requirement.
I strongly suggest the Chairs and the ADs to set a high bar to only adopt solutions with at least two implementations.

Tianran

From: netconf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 7:13 AM
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>; Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>; Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>; Netconf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Regarding 108 adoption hums

Hi,


On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:17 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: 05 August 2020 23:13
> To: netconf@ietf..org<mailto:[e-mail]>
> 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
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

--
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf