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

[Eric Gray <[e-mail]>]

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.

	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.

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

	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