Re: [netconf] Regarding 108 adoption hums

Adrian Farrel <> Fri, 07 August 2020 11:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C243A03EE for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 04:02:53 -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 Lr8zNnzp-GfR for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 04:02:51 -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 6DFB03A02BE for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 04:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 077B2m0f006330; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 12:02:48 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75F9D22042; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 12:02:48 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AB422204C; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 12:02:48 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 077B2lha014989 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Aug 2020 12:02:47 +0100
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Juergen Schoenwaelder'" <>
Cc: "'Kent Watsen'" <>, <>
References: <> <00cf01d66c99$07392530$15ab6f90$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 12:02:45 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <00f601d66caa$48a34cb0$d9e9e610$>
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+YyMkBLjgFaXx9lAqoAokGoeqmFYA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--26.133-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--26.133-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--26.133400-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: gTucSmrmRMPxIbpQ8BhdbPs3IjAeeG13X6zb82IV74xPvOpmjDN2kqFJ S1sWNSLSxCzeyr1FvOh4PdoKtYMuFzdU4n9N9PJifd/PCz/+9ZNgFto/VVnNJbZ25/Upg4v8Lgx JDGqZkvtvq3XPcoHERNr/0ptVz43S7DLY2FGw/Ju7B1QwzOcQDxmyTBaqiJvcwEgSPNlM5Q3frA EUZTjrwQA7oUjYa94XgJi+Usjj25q8Sm0lAaO40E4eFUkH5CFcrXkuON8pnlEjlnxOIeMfMLMfF DCa+KZ3Cr1jbh1tiICPWx38Q1qIm0HGTQqAQaePsTzXVHVB9VoHgh3sKJBzP/Alhlr8vzcdxz/7 xR5HMMmWuDQn8z1dtFUaM2+FCeWgk3+L/4zTFEO3RxL+7EfzsO1Rl5KFghC5sLigDA/FpvXhmoE MFHeqoU7cZiUSJRJ90xFqKxIY+r/U4DVIniQ5EVIWq0PbCp4xfYrr1p9yfCpTbQ95zRbWVq2b9f o4bSy/xr8KUaVS9sRVbf24SO+TiBG5EWWx2rjOo23GGZFBKAzOo//J/EA1QUYza41dGqxS1BQt3 e1Ue9fZ+HMpGtt/U+8kPAX6MdwaemzGG4qDPanCtSG/SQAC8ZLQR37yyvyaePCTOtgd+EN/JBbY s3u5sbgEDngN0nGItXiO16Do7SavvxILmKK/HIMbH85DUZXy/W9MYGK5mu1TZDOrzlZ+cHQdJ7X fU86e4kYXbobxJbLnIzRzWS2P0w==
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 11:02:54 -0000

Yes to everything you say, Juergen.

And, indeed, this is often what an adoption poll is intended to measure.

Just saying that (per 7221) you can know these things without a poll, and (perhaps) your test of adoption suitability will collect exactly this information so that a further poll will not be necessary.

Adrian (who hopes that WG participants will respond carefully to the seven separate requests for info)

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <> 
Sent: 07 August 2020 10:17
To: Adrian Farrel <>
Cc: 'Kent Watsen' <>et>;
Subject: Re: [netconf] Regarding 108 adoption hums


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.


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 <> 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

Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <>