IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] Regarding 108 adoption hums

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Fri, 07 August 2020 02:54 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.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 C56A13A0D37 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 19:54:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 yHxpA82zZzf4 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 19:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33ECE3A0D36 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 19:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml716-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 91474A3A7F590E9959ED for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 03:54:46 +0100 (IST)
Received: from nkgeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.40) by lhreml716-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 03:54:45 +0100
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.157) by nkgeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:54:43 +0800
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) by nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:54:43 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] Regarding 108 adoption hums
Thread-Index: AQHWa3W0/zcfmCeL8EOO/Z5e6RwUCakr9FrQ
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 02:54:43 +0000
Message-ID: <dc50dd7335b64dc7be98bb84f236e260@huawei.com>
References: <01000173c0afb995-d6003a0a-edbd-4113-b3e6-9092d30ec2a7-000000@us-east-1.amazonses.com>
In-Reply-To: <01000173c0afb995-d6003a0a-edbd-4113-b3e6-9092d30ec2a7-000000@us-east-1.amazonses.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.128]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/uYmiFpyF9UUt_iY0wwCN2LZVQ_s>
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 02:54:51 -0000

Hi Kent, Mahesh and Robert,

I am just thinking, are these questions redundant to the Adoption call?
It seems the similar questions as supposed to be asked in the adoption call.

Best,
Tianran



-----Original Message-----
From: netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 6:13 AM
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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email