On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:10 AM, t.petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: > ----- 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.
Yup, the CfA for this took a really long time, because we had 2 competing drafts, and delayed while waiting to see if the authors could merge them, which should take priority, etc. The WG -00 was posted on December 12th, the authors asked for LC on Jan 15th, and we said (on the 16th) that we'd like a bit more feedback and if we didn't, would try force the issue by going to WGLC. Sine then we've gotten review from one person - yourself. I have on my calendar (which you cannot see :-)): "Start WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-00 - Feb 2nd" > 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, Ok, but there will not *be* a shepherd writeup until the WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp is done, and there is consensus. We've been having a really hard time getting people to review and comment in OpsAWG, partly during discussions, but especially during LC - if folk have reviewed and provided feedback during the evolution of the documents it is still helpful to comment (even just to say that they still approve, and still think it is worth publishing) at LC. Because of the nature of OpsAWG we often end up with documents that are only of interest to a small subset of participants and / or are maintenance type documents, and so we often only have a small number of people participating, but calling consensus on a tiny number of reviews (and explaining this is writeups) is getting old... W > > 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 -- 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
