Re: again about interim

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Eliot Lear wrote:
> Dan,
>
> I have to say that thus far I find arguments both for and against an
> interim meeting unconvincing.  In my experience, the best use of an
> interim is when you have clear questions to discuss - even if they're
> big ones, whether to reuse SYSLOG or whether to use the same transport
> connection or what if any data model should be used.  Having
> presentations on the options is fair game, but there should be drafts
> associated with those presentations so people can prepare.  We have none
> of that yet but perhaps the lists that Sharon and Juergen are making
> will crystallize soon...

I have asked Phil if he would consider writing a draft
on the endless RPC approach.  That means the floor is
open to anyone who wants to take the time to write a
draft on "notifications in netconf".

Speaking of big questions...

Dave H. and I are particularly concerned about this
architecture thing.  There doesn't seem to be any.
How does this all fit with our RPC-based configuration
datastore manipulation protocol?  What is the extensible
framework that allows the maximum standards features
for interoperability, plus a content-independent data
payload capability?  What are the components needed
immediately (vs. phased in) to deploy a robust, secure,
efficient, and interoperable notification mechanism?


> On the other hand, I am flummoxed by the IESG's response.  If a WG has
> those questions above, then if the chairs predict they'll need lots more
> time to answer those questions than can be afforded during an IETF, why
> should anybody insist on YET ANOTHER FLIGHT?  Some people must really
> hate where they live.

Well, I could see if it was going to cost the IETF
extra money (it won't) or be an extra burden on the AD
who has a lot of meetings during IETF week
(who said it was okay with him).  We can have our
regular slideware 2-hour meeting on Friday like normal,
take a lunch break, go to a different room, and continue
working (or go home if you don't want to stay).

It's not just a flight.
It's the time, the travel, and the hotel costs to go
somewhere else, in addition to the regular IETF travel costs.

It's also the reality that we will get many more participants
in Montreal than any random city anybody has named, because
they are already there for all the other WGs on M-Th they
need to attend.  We WANT participation right?  (Randy Bush
once joked I should hold my RMONMIB interim in Anchorage
in January so nobody will attend and we will make decisions
faster. ;-)



> Eliot

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/>