Re: [OPSAWG] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib
[ Top post ] Scott and I discussed this document again today, and, in light of the comments we got after the WGLC ended, have decided that there is now enough evidence of support to proceed. Thank you to everyone who commented, and apologies to the authors for the runaround. One of us will write up the shepherd document shortly. W On Wed, 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 -- 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
Re: [OPSAWG] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib
Just read the document by accident and support to move it forward. Cheers Dacheng ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
Re: [OPSAWG] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib
- 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
Re: [OPSAWG] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib
i read it and it's ok. i need it and will use it. randy ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
Re: [OPSAWG] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib
- 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
Re: [OPSAWG] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib
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
Re: [OPSAWG] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib
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
Re: [OPSAWG] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib
we (the chairs) are trying to be better about paying attention to when last calls and cals for adoption finish (Warren has set up calendar entries to remind us) Scott On 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. 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
Re: [OPSAWG] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:40:48PM -0500, Warren Kumari wrote: 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, Too bad, this document is actually useful and as far as I can tell technically sound (but then I am co-author and hence this voice does not count). /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 http://www.jacobs-university.de/ ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
Re: [OPSAWG] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib
The implementation of hypervisors and virtual machines is increasing and there needs to be a way for administrators to view a dashboard on the status of multiple machines. The implementation of this module will be very useful in meeting this need. In addition, this module also supports a rich set of notifications which is equally important. I believe this document will be widely used. -Andy On Jan 29, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:40:48PM -0500, Warren Kumari wrote: 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, Too bad, this document is actually useful and as far as I can tell technically sound (but then I am co-author and hence this voice does not count). /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 http://www.jacobs-university.de/ ___ 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
Re: [OPSAWG] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib
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
