Re: [OPSAWG] Request for review: draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Hi there all,

A quick update - I'm now the responsible AD for this document; chairs
/ WG - this feels very much like an OPSAWG document (PSAMP / IPFIX
have concluded, and much of the work has moved into OpsAWG).
Is there any reason why this **isn't** the best place for this
document to be discussed? Should the authors ask for adoption /
discussion here? If not, where should it be discussed? I'm
uncomfortable progressing it without significant discussion,
especially because it "Obsoletes: 6728 (if approved)".

W

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:38 PM Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi there all,
>
> Back in Nov 2018 Ignas agreed to AD sponsor this document. Directorate
> reviews were requested in Nov 2019[0], and two OpsDir reviews were
> supplied, both with the status "OPSDIR Last Call Review: Not Ready
> (partially completed)" :
> 1: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model-02-opsdir-lc-ersue-2019-12-01/
> 2: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model-02-opsdir-lc-clarke-2019-12-20/
> A third reviewer recently let us know that, due to other commitments /
> being over-committed  they no longer have the time to complete this
> review either.
>
> However, the reviewers all felt that additional review / discussion
> was in order, and so I'm politely asking / begging OpsAWG to review /
> discuss.
>
> From the "Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents"
> (https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/area-director-sponsoring-documents/)
> :
> "The exact nature of the review within the IETF is not specified, but
> it is expected that documents be posted for review in the relevant WG
> mailing lists. Often no relevant mailing list exists, in which case
> area-specific or IETF main discussion list can be used. Individual
> reviewers, review teams, and review boards for specific topics can
> also be used. If no sufficient review has been obtained, the AD should
> solicit it explicitly."
>
> PSAMP (and IPFIX) is closed, and much of this discussion now occurs in
> OpsAWG. Joe (as one of the OpsAWG chairs) has agreed to let us use the
> OpsAWG list for this discussion / feedback, etc.
>
> To help jog people's memory, get the ball rolling, this was discussed
> at IETF 103:
> Minutes: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-103-opsawg/
> Video (link to start of preso):  https://youtu.be/PDVOfKqOb3Y?t=6680
>
> So, please, read the draft, and the reviews, and provide feedback here....
>
>
> I'd also like to sincerely thank Mehmet, Joe and Benoit for their
> (partial) reviews, and Gunter Van de Velde for organizing the OpsDir -
> they are incredibly helpful.
>
> W
> [0]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model/history/
>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>    ---maf



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf