Re: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00

[Andrew Newton <andy at hxr.us>]

On Mar 14, 2007, at 6:55 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> The protocol proposal produced are not convincing that there is a  
> bunch of folks that have a common shared version of what the  
> problem is. Without this you have no chance of consensus at a  
> widely useful protocol. The number of people that replied  
> positively to my question about should we have a BOF  could be  
> counted on one hand. You need to build better consensus of what is  
> the work that needs to happen. I'm glad to help you do this.

First, what protocol proposal are you talking about?  I think those  
of us who want something NOW are being very patient by not putting  
forth 5 different protocol proposals, and instead documenting  
requirements, use cases, and problem statements so that there is a  
common understanding.  You seemed to indicate this is exactly what we  
should do by getting requirements passed in one working group before  
trying for a BoF.  However, if you feel we should just start taking a  
stab at protocols, I'm all for it.  On an issue as simple as this,  
requirements only serve the IESG.... nobody else reads them.

Second, mailing list traffic and show of hands in a meeting are not  
the same ratios in all communities, even within RAI.  I realize that  
some RAI working groups seem to have volumes of list traffic compared  
to hands in the meeting (I know, I co-chair one), but if you look at  
SPEERMINT you'll see that it is not the same.  At the last SPEERMINT  
meeting, the item that got the most agreement at the open discussion  
period was this issue.  Or do you expect that all RAI efforts must  
have as big an audience and as far reaching an impact as the SIP WG?   
What's the magic number we need, because I have not found it in any  
RFC where it should be documented?

I realize this is not your half of RAI and appreciate your  
willingness to dive through new drafts and issues, especially given  
your load for the working groups where you are AD.  We'd have a  
better IETF if only more ADs worked as hard as you.  But I'm baffled  
by your recommended course of action and cannot understand why you do  
not feel it is a couple of process hurdles too many.

-andy

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum