> >It is the opinion of this chair (Warren having recused himself) that the ID > >author > >should see if he can do what David suggests (add material summarizing the > >problem at the end of the draft) and republish as a non-WG ID. The WG can > >revisit > >the question of adoption after that is done.
> We can and will, although we were very much hoping to do this as more of a > community and less as two individuals. Ah well - consensus was not met... As I originally wrote, I would support adoption of this draft if the purpose was to expand it into a problem statement, but that's not how the purpose of adopting the draft was characterized. With luck, the added material can make that purpose clear, and a subsequent adoption call would have a positive outcome. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Grundemann > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 10:13 AM > To: Scott Bradner; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Call for Adoption: draft-opsawg-operators-ietf > > > > On 1/23/15, 5:22 AM, "Scott O. Bradner" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >It is the opinion of this chair (Warren having recused himself) that the ID > author > >should see if he can do what David suggests (add material summarizing the > >problem at the end of the draft) and republish as a non-WG ID. The WG can > revisit > >the question of adoption after that is done. > > We can and will, although we were very much hoping to do this as more of a > community and less as two individuals. Ah well - consensus was not met... > > > >My personal view is that this is useful information (though more details of > the > >actual research would be helpful (as Juergen commented) and the IETF > >would benefit from the information being published as an RFC but it would > >mostly help if the IETF actually made use of the information in some way to > >broaden operator participation - I am not sure how to get there from > >here (or from the ID). > > That¹s exactly the conversation we were hoping this working group would > have, which is of course why we submitted the document for adoption. I see > this as an opportunity missed, but we¹ll try againŠ > > Disappointed in Denver, > ~Chris > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
