Hello all, I didn’t send any response to the last call of the vmm-mib since I am one of the authors of the draft. But let me say one thing.
I remember not a few people joined the discussion of this draft both on the mailing list and on the mic. They gave us many useful comments, questions, objections, and sometimes good revised text for making the draft better. We incorporated those responses and make the final draft which was shown during the last call. So, to those who joined the discussion before, please show your supports of the draft, if you think the draft is valuable for the future hypervisor operation and management systems. Thanks, --- Keiichi SHIMA (島 慶一) Research Laboratory, IIJ Innovation Institute, Inc <keii...@iijlab.net> WIDE project <sh...@wide.ad.jp> > On 2015Jan 29,, at 08:58, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Scott O. Bradner <s...@sobco.com> wrote: >> which is too bad since I think the topic is a useful one > > Yup, as do I... > > If there is a sudden upwelling of support and interest, we can > definitely discuss rerunning the WGLC. > >> >> 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 > > Yup. The consensus on some of the documents we have progressed has > been thiner that we'd like. We've been getting consensus, but from a > much smaller group than ideal. > > Remember folk - if you might want the working group to review one of > *your* documents in the future, you are going to have to review (and > provide feedback!) on other peoples documents now... > > W > > > >> >> Scott >> >>> On Jan 28, 2015, at 6:40 PM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: >>>> Dear OpsAWG WG, >>>> >>>> The authors of draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib have indicated that they >>>> believe that the document is ready, and have asked for Working Group >>>> Last Call. >>>> >>>> The draft is available here: >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib/ >>>> >>>> Please review this draft to see if you think it is ready for >>>> publication and send comments to the list, clearly stating your view. >>>> >>>> This WGLC ends Fri 23-Jan-2015. >>>> >>>> In addition, to satisfy RFC 6702 ("Promoting Compliance with >>>> Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)"): >>>> Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to >>>> draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in >>>> compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 >>>> for more details.) >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Warren Kumari >>>> (as OpsAWG WG co-chair) >>> >>> The WGLC has concluded with no feedback or comments, and so we have to >>> conclude that the WG is no longer interested in this work. >>> >>> Apologies to the authors, >>> W >>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad >>>> idea in the first place. >>>> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing >>>> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair >>>> of pants. >>>> ---maf >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad >>> idea in the first place. >>> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing >>> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair >>> of pants. >>> ---maf >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OPSAWG mailing list >>> OPSAWG@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >> > > > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
