[As co-chair] Andy et al.,
Please keep in mind this message from Benoit: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg14585.html And note that Lou is trying to perform the analysis now. Thanks, Kent From: Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com<mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> Date: Monday, February 8, 2016 at 3:58 PM To: Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net<mailto:lber...@labn.net>> Cc: Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com<mailto:m...@tail-f.com>>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de<mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>>, "draft-openconfig-netmod-opst...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-openconfig-netmod-opst...@ietf.org>" <draft-openconfig-netmod-opst...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-openconfig-netmod-opst...@ietf.org>>, "draft-kwatsen-netmod-opst...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-kwatsen-netmod-opst...@ietf.org>" <draft-kwatsen-netmod-opst...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-kwatsen-netmod-opst...@ietf.org>>, "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod] OpState Solution Options Hi, It should be up to the co-chairs to make consensus calls. The IETF 94 minutes indicate that "solution 2" (RPC-based) had consensus in the room. https://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/minutes?item=minutes-94-netmod.html I have not seen any evidence that room consensus has changed on the mailing list. Andy On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net<mailto:lber...@labn.net>> wrote: [retry] Martin, On 2/8/2016 3:42 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net<mailto:lber...@labn.net>> wrote: >> Martin, >> Thanks for the response. See below. >> >> On 2/8/2016 1:57 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net<mailto:lber...@labn.net>> wrote: > [...] > >>>> But it's >>>> also clear that some in the WG would prefer Option 2 (and most/all of >>>> these are its coauthors.) >>> This was the preferred solution of the room in Yokohama. 2 of the 4 >>> authors were present. >> sure. And we know that the IETF consensus is not judged by who is in >> the room. It is of course useful information to the WG and the chairs. > You wrote "most/all of [those who prefer option 2] are its coauthors". I was referring to the on-list discussion, but fair point. But keep in mind that an in-person meeting isn't an authoritative source of WG consensus from the IETF process standpoint. > My observation was that just 2 of the coauthors were in the room, and > still this was the preferred solution; thus I think that your > statement that I quoted is incorrect. > okay, let me modify my comment: OLD and most/all of these are its coauthors NEW at very least its coauthors Lou > /martin >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
