Re: [netconf] Regarding 108 adoption hums

Henk Birkholz <> Fri, 07 August 2020 09:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CCF13A0DF9 for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 02:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.848
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bRqpC5nNLWse for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 02:15:55 -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 0E3853A0DF7 for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 02:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2GWDgAsGy1f/xoBYJlggQmBTAGDFoE?= =?us-ascii?q?zCoQqkReaJYFeCwsBAQEBAQEBAQEGAQEYCwoCBAEBAoQGRAKCNgEkOQUNAhA?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQYBAQEBAQYEAgKGRQxDFgGCeYEDAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARYCQ1U?= =?us-ascii?q?SAR4BAQEBAwEBIQ8BBTYXBAkCEQQBAQECAiYCAicgCAgGAQwGAgEBgyIBgns?= =?us-ascii?q?FC5hUmwR2gTKFUoNlgToGgQ4rhk6GPw+BTD+BEScPglo+glwBAYFGgzCCYAS?= =?us-ascii?q?Se6J9KQeBW4EKgQkEC5huBQoekVMGjjCSK58wAgQCCQIVgWuBek0kT4JpUBc?= =?us-ascii?q?CDZckhURyNwIGAQcBAQMJfIxcgXgBgRABAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,445,1589234400"; d="scan'208";a="23541744"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Aug 2020 11:15:51 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AiEQAsGy1f/1lIDI1gHgEBCxIMQIF?= =?us-ascii?q?MAYInbwNUMCwKhCqRF5olgWkLAQMBAQEBAQYBARgLCgIEAQGECEQCgjQCJDk?= =?us-ascii?q?FDQIQAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FXAxDFgGFFwEBAQQBASEPAQU2FwQJAhEEAQEBAgI?= =?us-ascii?q?mAgInIAgIBgEMBgIBAYMiAYMAC5hUmwR2gTKFUoNlgToGgQ4rhk6GPw+BTD+?= =?us-ascii?q?BEScPglo+glwBAYFGgzCCYASSe6J9KQeBW4EKgQkEC5huBQoekVMGjjCSK58?= =?us-ascii?q?wAgQCCQIVgWsigVdNJE+CaVAXAg2XJIVEQTE3AgYBBwEBAwl8jFyBeAGBEAE?= =?us-ascii?q?B?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,445,1589234400"; d="scan'208";a="88035930"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Aug 2020 11:15:48 +0200
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-10) with ESMTPS id 0779Fmp6009566 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:15:48 +0200
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.487.0; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:15:43 +0200
To: <>, "'Kent Watsen'" <>, <>
References: <> <00cf01d66c99$07392530$15ab6f90$>
From: Henk Birkholz <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:15:42 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <00cf01d66c99$07392530$15ab6f90$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: []
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 09:15:58 -0000

Hi chairs,
hi list,

I have to admit that I am also tad bit puzzled by this procedure, I am 
afraid. If this this would be a WGLC instead of a WGA, I'd be inclined 
to support a more fine grained gateway procedure. But presenting the 
session output as "the results didn’t adequately determine if the drafts 
should be adopted" seems to be a bit off. Why not ask for discrete 
concerns about adoption motions for specific contributions instead of 
this (rather surprising) reset?

Viele Grüße,


On 07.08.20 10:59, 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 <> On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: 05 August 2020 23:13
> To:
> 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 Chairs
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list