Re: [netconf] Regarding 108 adoption hums

> On Aug 7, 2020, at 4:13 PM, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:17 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de <mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>> 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.

Precisely. 

Coming out of the meeting, it was not clear to us (the chairs, at least), whether the problem the drafts were describing are issues the WG wanted to see solved. We are hoping that the individual e-mails on the drafts trigger the kind of technical discussion that leads us to get a gauge of what the WG thinks are the problems they want to see solved, or not solved. As Juergen suggests, when responding, it would be great to see who, outside the pool of authors, is willing to review the drafts, contribute to the discussion of the draft, and is planning to implement the draft. 

For us it will also answer the process question of whether the drafts should be adopted or not, in which case we can skip the adoption poll.

> The WG should be
> finishing up configured notifications. Try to standardize binary telemetry instead
> of just leaving placeholders for proprietary vendor solutions.

Good point. While we are at it, we should discuss whether these are problems WG should be working on.

> 
> 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 <netconf-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> > Sent: 05 August 2020 23:13
> > To: netconf@ietf..org <mailto: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 <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > netconf mailing list
> > netconf@ietf.org <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/ <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>
Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com