RE: Weak turnout : was-> A proposal for moving ahead on BC models

["Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <flefauch@cisco.com>]

Bert,

I'd like to repeat the point I made Yesterday. The "Weak turnout" DID
NOT relate to the question of wether we should go ahead with BC Models
or not (or whether we should go ahead with DS-TE or not). The "Weak
turnout" DID relate to just one of the many incremental steps that one
makes along the way, specifically : which of the two models should be
default and which should be optional (which is not the most exciting
decision we ever had to make).
For such a decision, I'd say a turnout of 9 is quite usual (even if far
from ideal) as compared to other turnout for that sort of incremental
decisions in IETF.

So, I think we are now clear that the refered "Weak Turnout" is NOT a
reflection of interest in BC models (or of DSTE in general) but probably
a reflection of the fact that it is hard for all of us to closely follow
every incremental steps and sometimes difficult to get excited about
whether something is refered to as Default or as Optional.

Still, I understand your valid concern for making sure that the WGs are
working on something useful. 
With respect to DSTE, this is something we've obviously debated in the
TEWG, BEFORE starting the work on DSTE. It was kind of a "hot topic".
For memory, here's (my recollection of) what we concluded:
	- while this is not expected to apply to the majority of
networks, there is a sufficient base of operators interested in the
technology and wanting to have it standardised. Thus, the corresponding
item of work was incorporated in the TEWG charter.
	- a DSTE-reqts document was to be produced to clarify (i) what
these operators want to do and (ii) if/why existing mechanisms are not
sufficient
	- if existing mechanisms are not sufficient, develop necessary
extensions.
This is what we have been doing over the last two years.

With respect to level of interest in DSTE, you may have noticed that
this topic amounted to the majority of the exchanges on the TEWG list
and of the discussions at TEWG meetings. Without doing the actual name
count, I'd guess that more than 25 people have been involved authoring
I-Ds, contributing or making detailed comments about DS-TE. This
includes major SPs.
For what it is worth, there are also implementations of this technology
today (which don't interwork for lack of standards).

There is no dispute that this technology is of no applicability to
some/many environments. And this explains why this question of "should
we really be working on DSTE" comes up occasionaly.
But at the same time, it is of applicability to other environments and
justifies the corresponding work. 
Having a "Weak turnout" on how to reference model_A vs model_B, does not
seem to be in contradiction with that. Having a number of SPs confirming
DSTE is not applicable to their environments does not seem to contradict
that either.


Cheers

Francois


>> 
>> At 00:56 03/01/23 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>> >Thank you very much Vijay. That was/is exactly what I worry about.
>> >If not enough people (and 10 is the absolute minumum, but 
>> having seen
>> >the attendence of TWEG sessions, I'd expect 25 or more) can speak up
>> >to state one of:
>> >
>> >  - I read it and I am positive, it is good stuff
>> >  - I read it and I see no problems or objections
>> >  - I read it but I cannot determine if it is bad, but I 
>> can see that
>> >    what has been discussed in the WG is indeed in the document
>> >  - I read it and I have these nits/objections...
>> >  - I did not read it cause this is not relevant to my xxx 
>> job/work/function
>> >  - I did not read it cause I think this is nonsense
>> >
>> >Then I get the feeling that we're just allowing a small group of
>> >people push their petty-project through the process. That seems NOT
>> >good to me. We need serious WG participation in reading and 
>> commenting
>> >in one of these forums above, before we can declare that we have WG
>> >consensus on a document to be presented to IESG for approval as RFC
>> >(in whatever form).
>> >
>> >Bert
>> 
>> ******************************
>> Nagao Ogino, Dr. Eng.
>> KDDI R & D Laboratories Inc.
>> 2-1-15 Ohara, Kamifukuoka-shi,
>> Saitama 356-8502 Japan
>> TEL   +81 49 278 7860
>> FAX   +81 49 278 7516
>> E-mail   ogino@kddilabs.jp
>> ****************************** 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>