Subject: [OPSAWG] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 12:15:02 -0500

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)

-- 
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

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:40:48 -0500

> compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378

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

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:54:19 -0500

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 

Scott

> On Jan 28, 2015, at 6:40 PM, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

---

From: "Bradner, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 23:57:54 +0000

Scott

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:58:18 -0500

> 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.

> and if no one speaks up we have no way to know if there is consensus

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

---

From: Michael MacFaden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 00:03:30 +0000

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 <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

---

From: "Bradner, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 01:53:19 +0000

no exact number but zero is not enough

any intelligent input would be helpful

Scott

> On Jan 28, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Michael MacFaden <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On Jan 28, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Scott O. Bradner <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:24:42 +0900

# resending, since my mail was bounced because of the sender address

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)
WIDE project <[email-masked]>
Research Laboratory, IIJ Innovation Institute, Inc <[email-masked]>

> On 2015Jan 29,, at 08:58, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:10:14 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bradner, Scott" <[email-masked]>
To: "Michael MacFaden" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:53 AM

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

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:38:38 +0900

Hello all,

Thanks,
---
Keiichi SHIMA (島 慶一)

---

From: Joe Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 09:27:19 -0500

> 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.

Yes, I had made many comments on this module before, and I feel that the 
WGLC version was good.  I didn't have anything more to add.  In fact, I 
thought I had said so on the list, but perhaps that email never did get 
sent.

Joe

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 07:09:47 -0800

i read it and it's ok.  i need it and will use it.

randy

---

From: "Bradner, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:38:23 +0000

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 <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:05:07 -0500

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:10 AM, t.petch <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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

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

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 18:30:12 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Warren Kumari" <[email-masked]>
To: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 4:05 PM

> 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

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:15:07 +0100

> 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/>

---

From: "Bradner, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 21:16:01 +0000

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

Scott

> On Jan 29, 2015, at 1:30 PM, t.petch <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Andrew Donati <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:56:52 -0500

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 <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 21:14:59 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bradner, Scott" <[email-masked]>
To: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 9:16 PM

<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