Re: [trill] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-trill-oam-framework-00

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Eric Gray <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Donald,
>
>         Thanks for the clarification.  The request for support for adoption was sent out on
> 26 October, looking for responses "in the next week or so."
>
>         The request was posted by Erik Nordmark and I had missed it.

I believe, when I went over draft status at the beginning of the
meeting, I mentioned that a call to make this a working group draft
had gone out. But whether I did or not, I should probably have
mentioned this later in the meeting when it came up.

>         My confusion on this was worsened by the way that the usual procedure had been
> "turned around" in seeking confirmation "from the room" of an apparent consensus on the
> list.
>
>         As a matter of process, I wonder why the question was asked.  I believe that the list
> result would have over-ridden the sense of the room, since the results from the list are - I
> believe - expected to be definitive.  Ratification by room consensus should be unnecessary
> and irrelevant.

Well, a couple of points:
     In making a consensus judgement, WG Chairs can take into account
both the mailing list and the opinion of open WG meetings. A call for
opinions/comments on the mailing list that either begins or ends with
determining the opinion of an open meeting is fine.
     So far as I am aware, there is no IETF rule requiring a formal
consensus determination to make a draft a WG draft. We more or less
operate that way in the TRILL WG, at least requiring a clear
preference, and people seem to be happy with the procedure. But, while
it is less common recently, there have been IETF WGs in the past that
operated in what might be called a promiscuous mode where numerous
drafts were made WG drafts just by the action of the Chair, frequently
including mutually contradictory drafts. Of course, such WGs only ever
progressed a fraction of their WG drafts to RFC.

>         Asking the question in the room was unusual enough to conform my belief that the
> request to the list had not yet been sent.

Different IETF WGs differ in this regard. For example, the procedure
of asking for an opinion and/or discussing a personal draft on the
mailing list followed by taking the opinion of an open meeting and
making the draft a WG draft if that meeting opinion is favorable is
the common process in the IETF DHC WG, at least as far as I have
observed.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]

>         My apologies for spreading confusion on the issue...
>
> --
> Eric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:41 PM
> To: Eric Gray
> Cc: TRILL Working Group; Ralph Droms ([e-mail])
> Subject: Re: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-trill-oam-framework-00
> Importance: High
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> The call by the Chairs to make this OAM framework draft a WG draft was issued here http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg05348.html
>
> Technically, I could argue that there was no need to wait until the WG meeting before making a determination but we did so the consensus in the room merely ratified the consensus on the mailing list.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA  [e-mail]
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Eric Gray <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Donald,
>>
>>
>>
>>                 I am confused about something.
>>
>>
>>
>>                 During the TRILL WG meeting, I believe we had a
>> consensus of the room
>>
>> to adopt the draft "draft-salam-trill-oam-framework" as a working
>> group draft.
>>
>>
>>
>>                 It is the case that a "consensus of the room" is not
>> sufficient to conclude
>>
>> working group consensus has been achieved.  The room consensus needs
>> to be
>>
>> confirmed on the mailing list - usually with a one or two week poll.
>>
>>
>>
>>                 Yet draft-salam-trill-oam-framework has been posted as
>> a working group
>>
>> draft (under the name shown in the subject line of this message).
>>
>>
>>
>>                 I have looked though my mail and do not see an
>> announcement of any
>>
>> such poll for consensus
>>
>>
>>
>>                 Did the poll confirming the sense of the room happen,
>> or have we had
>>
>> a bit of a slip-up?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Eric