----- Original Message ----- From: "Bradner, Scott" <s...@harvard.edu> To: "t.petch" <ie...@btconnect.com> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 9:16 PM
are you referring to the notes you sent back in may 2014? if not - please resend so we know what you are referring to thanks <tp> Scott sorry that I have confused you, I was only referring to draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-00 as mentioned by Warren in the immediately preceding paragraph, so the comments I was referring to are those I have posted to the list this month. And I have since reposted the one which I think would benefit from AD input, to Joel, and the one that needs WG Chair input, to Warren, in the hope that that makes it clear(?) Tom Petch Scott > On Jan 29, 2015, at 1:30 PM, t.petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: > > ----- 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
