----- Original Message -----
From: "Bradner, Scott" <s...@harvard.edu>
To: "Michael MacFaden" <m...@vmware.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:53 AM

> no exact number but zero is not enough
>
> any intelligent input would be helpful

Scott

This is probably unintelligent, but that is how I am! It is/was on my
list of things to progress but it comes below e.g.
draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp
which has had issues outstanding with it for nearly a year, during which
the call for adoption took about four months.  That is where the time
goes, checking, waiting, prodding, wondering, meandering off into
appsawg whose calls for adoption - despite adopting a leaky bucket
approach to adoption - seem even more fraught etc.

So I have commented on this I-D in the past - I tend to read every mib
module - but will not be doing so just yet.  Perhaps when the shepherd
write-up for
draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp
is complete,

Tom Petch

> Scott
>
> > On Jan 28, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Michael MacFaden <m...@vmware.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Exactly  how many folks need to speak up?
> >
> > We did have operator input on this work.
> > We can ping them to to send email
> > to the list...
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > On Jan 28, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Scott O. Bradner <s...@sobco.com> wrote:
> >
> >> which is too bad since I think the topic is a useful one
> >>
> >> but, as chairs, we are supposed to do things based on WG consensus
> >> and if no one speaks up we have no way to know if there is
consensus
> >> one way or another
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OPSAWG mailing list
> > OPSAWG@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Reply via email to