Re: [netconf] Regarding 108 adoption hums

Adrian Farrel <> Fri, 07 August 2020 08:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788033A0DC2 for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 01:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1a9qSVJUr1po for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 01:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CEE43A0D9B for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 01:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0778xGrG004219; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 09:59:16 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9810622042; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 09:59:16 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 831B122046; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 09:59:16 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0778xFcs020628 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Aug 2020 09:59:16 +0100
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Kent Watsen'" <>, <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 09:59:15 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <00cf01d66c99$07392530$15ab6f90$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIfQ7LOfcJkMW7q4E+Bn+YyMkBLjqiap2dA
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--12.814-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--12.814-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--12.814200-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: vbSD0OnL8/LxIbpQ8BhdbLlRS/TbY0kCIiTd2l7lf6Fj21c8aH+7Q2ly s1PDhWLozi5dYQjfWjmfpYxFCGmlCzX6PE8rwd6hGfTCsR61MuG5I3Jkp5qIPlAoBBK61Bhcy6i gHaxqQh9xDIUEUHVbUEgAAZdl5uIbUjaMAvB33L3begPiArwouovkwJz527bYH1Ag+/MaFnfJUF bx9STuk0btwy1ZOZ0ck9yCAJhmQwW/c+D5WJtQZljEXwwRC1JsicCHz0eydvRWvpVGJ7EisS8G2 Ltt4jDGAWMdzSV1IwZRfJLIyxbVcRG5EWWx2rjOo23GGZFBKAzOo//J/EA1QUYza41dGqxS1BQt 3e1Ue9fZ+HMpGtt/U+8kPAX6Mdwaye9S6P4htXa1PiMh4ZF39QVyeo9hM9SHpjtcfbwefVGjxYy RBa/qJQOkBnb8H8GW0KkIUsNMdlTdB/CxWTRRu25FeHtsUoHurEahVcfiF+EtwoMBxHwqA3Po3P vRRj7eV1Bu7BMx6DE+kK598Yf3Mg==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Regarding 108 adoption hums
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 08:59:22 -0000

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!


-----Original Message-----
From: netconf <> On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: 05 August 2020 23:13
Subject: [netconf] Regarding 108 adoption hums


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 mailing list