At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:17:47 -0600, Randy Presuhn wrote: > Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology > choices at the CANMOD BOF. Our original proposal for consensus > hums included getting a of sense of preferences among the various > proposals. We were told we could *not* ask these questions, for fear > of upsetting Eric Rescorla.
Well, it's certainly true that the terms--agreed to by the IESG and the IAB--on which the BOF were held were that there not be a beauty contest at the BOF but that there first be a showing that there was consensus to do work in this area at all. I'm certainly willing to cop to being one of the people who argued for that, but I was far from the only one. If you want to blame me for that, go ahead. In any case, now that consensus to do *something* has been established it is the appropriate time to have discussion on the technology. I certainly never imagined that just because there weren't hums taken in PHL that that meant no hums would ever be taken. > (It's unclear to me why his perspectives > on configuration management information models should be subject to > special consideration, while the folk who have been doing > active work and real products in this area over the last two decades > are largely ignored.) Given that the BOF was in fact held and the WG is now being proposed, "largely ignored" isn't quite the way I would characterize the situation. -Ekr _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
