[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Interim attendance survey

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

Andy,

As I said I am not opposed to an interim meeting. In fact I am in favor
anything that can help us make progress. 
I would however not tightly couple holding an interim with the success
of the NETCONF notifications work, or completion of the charter and
present the interim as a 'last chance' opportunity.



I wasn't -- directly.
However, without an interim I think we will
be in this exact situation in Montreal.

If we have a normal interim, it will be in London in May.

There is also the possibility that the IESG will approve
my request for "Interim Friday", in which case we could
have a 3 day interim (Friday - Sunday) at the Montreal IETF instead.
IMO this is the best choice because it minimizes travel costs.





For somebody looking from the outside the NETCONF WG may seem actually
in rather good shape.  All due milestones are completed, we have an
initial submission for the only remaining charter item - notifications
and we have still six months ahead until we need to submit a
notifications document at the required level of consensus for WGLC. This
is good in IETF terms nowadays. I am aware that this good shape is
apparent, and there is little agreement on the problem space, and too
little review of the draft that includes a proposed solution even to
determine the level of agreement. I would encourage the WG to focus on
discussing the problem space (why are we doing notifications?) and the
draft and other options for solutions more intensively on the list. Let
us see in the next couple of weeks if we can reach more convergence on
the 'why' and 'how' questions. 


We clearly do not agree on the requirements.



If we do have contributions about the scope and reviews of the draft and
solutions on the list we have a chance to better converge and reach
agreement. If the level of apathy stays the same, I am not sure that a
partially attended interim meeting would help. 

Maybe it would help to consider other proposals.
Maybe the WG needs to spend a couple years on a
NETCONF Notification Requirements RFC first.

I hate those RFCs, but in this case there is such a
wide array of undocumented and implied requirements in
the draft (and the WG), I don't think consensus will
ever be reached by attempting to "refine" it.





Regards,

Dan



Andy





-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf@andybierman.com] Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 10:01 PM 
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: Netconf (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Interim attendance survey

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
As a contributor I would like the NETCONF notification work to continue and be completed in time.
As AD and WG Area Advisor I would like to attend the
meeting. However
my schedule is completely booked all May and the first days
of June,
until 6/5. Yet, my participation is not of condition for
the meeting 
happening.
I prefer European venues to North-American ones.
Me too. But it's actually a policy (AFAIK) that interim meetings take into consideration recent (and next) IETF locations and try to be fair. I also think we need to be practical, so I think London would be a good location. It might be easier with a local host to setup the logistics (Simon and I are not located near London).
I'm not actually convinced yet this work matters enough to the WG to be continued. IMO, this is a "nice-to-have" feature not a "must-have" (like a replacement for screen scraping CLI w/Expect).
For many WG members, a replacement for syslog is a "don't-need" feature. 
Combine "don't-need" with "nice-to-have" and the outcome isn't very
surprising:

    -- very few people reviewed the draft
    -- very little agreement on the problem space
    -- no agreement on the solution
An interim meeting would be a last-ditch attempt to get consensus started somewhere, before giving up. 



Dan

Andy






-----Original Message-----
From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
[mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 10:05 PM
To: Netconf (E-mail)
Subject: Interim attendance survey

Hi,
I want to do a survey to measure interest in the NETCONF
Notification
work. Very few people read the draft before the meeting,
let alone 
reviewed it, despite numerous pleas.

There are 3 choices (option 4: don't care, I already know about):

1) I do not want the NETCONF notification work to continue
   and I will not attend the interim meeting.

2) I want the NETCONF notification work to continue
   but I will not be able to attend the interim meeting.

3) I want the NETCONF notification work to continue
and I will be able to attend some or all of the 3 day interim meeting. 


Possible location: Outside North America;
                   (hopefully w/ non-stop flights from all over)
                   (3 IETFs in a row in NA already)

Possible dates: 1 - 2 months before the Montreal IETF (May - June)


Please send comments to the list.


thanks,
Andy




--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. 
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>


--
to unsubscribe send a message to
netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with the 
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>






--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>





--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>