RE: Consensus Call on Broadband Forum Next Steps

["Dave Nelson" <d.b.nelson@comcast.net>]

Wojciech Dec writes...

> I disagree with the consensus statement below.

Noted.

> As stated repeatedly on the thread, the pursuit of this
> draft has been a wild goose chase since the beginning and
> until further clarification is given, including actually
> answering to the draft authors, there is nothing which
> indicates that the statement below is not a continuation
> of this goose chase. The questions posed were clear and 
> included a clarification of the intended way forward.

To wit, on October 23, 2009 you wrote:

     We're currently planning on a two draft approach,
     pretty much reverting to the state prior to the 
     "merged draft", along with changes to rid of any 
     datatype issues (fingers crossed) and additional 
     explanatory text. Before we proceed on this path, 
     which to some may seem to be yet another goose chase,
     could you confirm that this is also your expectation?

The process for advancing work in the RADEXT WG does not include any a
priori guarantees that any particular draft revision will garner sufficient
support of the WG members to be adopted as a WG Work Item.  It seems like
that's the assurance you're seeking, however.

There have been repeated comments on the list about the design of the
attributes in the -01 draft, including comments about the use of tagging.
You have previously responded that the current format falls within the
blanket provisions of the string data type and that there are precedents for
such usage in other RFCs.  Thus, your query of October 23 was the first
indication that you might be willing to modify the design of those
attributes to meet with WG approval.

The way the process works is that you submit a revised draft that addresses
the comments received on the list, and then the WG reviews the new draft
against the accumulated comments.  If at that point in time there is
significant interest in adopting the draft as a WG Work Item, the draft can
move forward.  I'll remind you that when counting WG members that are
interested in a given draft, and are willing to review and comment upon the
draft, the chairs don?t count the authors.  The chairs need to see that
there are sufficient non-author WG members interested in the work to ensure
*independent* review.

In the absence of a new draft, another WG member, David Miles, proposed
another way forward for a subset of the work in the "merged draft".  The
current consensus call on the WG mailing list is to determine if the
consensus of the list matches the consensus of the WG at the Interim
Meeting.  That's always the way these things are done in the IETF, consensus
must be validated on the list.



--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>