----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Kumari" <war...@kumari.net> To: "t.petch" <ie...@btconnect.com> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 4:05 PM
> 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" Warren, but I have just raised several points, one of which needs AD input (IMHO), another of which needs WG Chair input, and to embark on a WG LC without clearing up these is, IMHO, likely to engender further confusion e.g. that points already raised will be re-raised and a new one from someone else will be lost in the noise. So for me, an I-D addressing the points raised comes first, then WG LC and, of course, the Shepherd write-up can only come after that, in, say, two months time. That is my, hatless, thinking. Meanwhile, I see other WG using tools to keep track of outstanding issues etc and not progressing any faster - tools may help, they can also hinder. Incidentally, I also see some WG chairs much more willing to abandon I-Ds completely at the WG LC stage, when getting no support on the list (as opposed to interpreting silence as no objections so on to AD review and IETF LC). I wonder if a few more such instances would galvanise action. Tom Petch > > 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
