Re: again about interim
Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> Fri, 31 March 2006 18:18 UTC
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPOCG-0005Ha-4W for netconf-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:18:08 -0500
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPOCF-0007gf-O9 for netconf-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:18:08 -0500
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org>) id 1FPO78-000H7w-NQ for netconf-data@psg.com; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:12:50 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=ham version=3.1.1
Received: from [205.178.146.56] (helo=ns-omrbm6.netsolmail.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <ietf@andybierman.com>) id 1FPO77-000H7l-Hw for netconf@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:12:49 +0000
Received: from mail.networksolutionsemail.com (omr6.mgt.bos.netsol.com [10.49.2.116] (may be forged)) by ns-omrbm6.netsolmail.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id k2VICkkQ010040 for <netconf@ops.ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:12:48 -0500
Received: (qmail 14237 invoked by uid 78); 31 Mar 2006 18:12:46 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.12?) (andy@andybierman.com@24.24.133.237) by 10.49.34.116 with SMTP; 31 Mar 2006 18:12:46 -0000
Message-ID: <442D7113.80804@andybierman.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:12:35 -0800
From: Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
CC: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, "Netconf (E-mail)" <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: again about interim
References: <AAB4B3D3CF0F454F98272CBE187FDE2F0A43C657@is0004avexu1.global.avaya.com> <442D05CA.5040101@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <442D05CA.5040101@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5
Eliot Lear wrote: > Dan, > > I have to say that thus far I find arguments both for and against an > interim meeting unconvincing. In my experience, the best use of an > interim is when you have clear questions to discuss - even if they're > big ones, whether to reuse SYSLOG or whether to use the same transport > connection or what if any data model should be used. Having > presentations on the options is fair game, but there should be drafts > associated with those presentations so people can prepare. We have none > of that yet but perhaps the lists that Sharon and Juergen are making > will crystallize soon... I have asked Phil if he would consider writing a draft on the endless RPC approach. That means the floor is open to anyone who wants to take the time to write a draft on "notifications in netconf". Speaking of big questions... Dave H. and I are particularly concerned about this architecture thing. There doesn't seem to be any. How does this all fit with our RPC-based configuration datastore manipulation protocol? What is the extensible framework that allows the maximum standards features for interoperability, plus a content-independent data payload capability? What are the components needed immediately (vs. phased in) to deploy a robust, secure, efficient, and interoperable notification mechanism? > > On the other hand, I am flummoxed by the IESG's response. If a WG has > those questions above, then if the chairs predict they'll need lots more > time to answer those questions than can be afforded during an IETF, why > should anybody insist on YET ANOTHER FLIGHT? Some people must really > hate where they live. Well, I could see if it was going to cost the IETF extra money (it won't) or be an extra burden on the AD who has a lot of meetings during IETF week (who said it was okay with him). We can have our regular slideware 2-hour meeting on Friday like normal, take a lunch break, go to a different room, and continue working (or go home if you don't want to stay). It's not just a flight. It's the time, the travel, and the hotel costs to go somewhere else, in addition to the regular IETF travel costs. It's also the reality that we will get many more participants in Montreal than any random city anybody has named, because they are already there for all the other WGs on M-Th they need to attend. We WANT participation right? (Randy Bush once joked I should hold my RMONMIB interim in Anchorage in January so nobody will attend and we will make decisions faster. ;-) > > Eliot Andy > > -- > to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with > the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. > archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/> > > -- to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>
- again about interim Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: again about interim Eliot Lear
- Re: again about interim Andy Bierman
- Re: again about interim Andy Bierman
- RE: again about interim Sharon Chisholm