|
Alan DeKok said: "I would like to see an updated draft prior to responding to the consensus call". [BA] Since IETF "Working Groups" make progress through the revision of documents in response to comments from WG participants (that is, by doing work), there is no doubt that an updated draft would represent a welcome development. In fact, it is hard to imagine how any progress can be made without such a submission. After all, there can be no progress within a "Working Group" without actual work being accomplished. At the Virtual Interim meeting, David Miles indicated an interest in producing such a submission, and the meeting participants provided encouragement for him to proceed along the lines he suggested. Since such a draft would represent an individual submission and the draft submission window is open, it can be submitted at any time. Nevertheless, we have received a request for additional guidance (see http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00552.html) and in order to respond to the request, a Consensus Call has been issued. Rather than representing a formal Call for Adoption, this Consensus Call is merely attempting to determine whether the approach proposed by David Miles (which envisaged a focused draft addressing the open issues and incorporating elements of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00) represents a potential way forward. Given that the draft which David Miles suggested does not actually exist, I can understand why WG participants might feel some level of discomfort in rendering a judgment on its suitability, particularly since the issues raised in previous WG discussions (listed on the RADEXT WG Issue list at http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT) have remained unaddressed for some time. Just as most of us are uncomfortable with signing a blank check, there may naturally be concern that the results of the Consensus Call could be misinterpreted as a blanket endorsement for a subsequent revision, regardless of its contents. While we certainly do not want to encourage such a mis-interpretation, given the lack of progress thus far and the repeated requests for "guidance", the Consensus Call seemed like the best way to address the specific question that was asked on the list. However, this is not the only way to make progress. For those not comfortable responding to the Consensus Call, it is still possible to contribute in other ways. As you alluded to, the foremost way would be to submit a draft addressing the issues that have been raised in previous WG discussions in physical and virtual meetings as well as on the list. However, an alternative way to contribute would be by submitting reviews of one or more of the existing documents, including http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00. |