[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes



I suggest to everybody to cool down a little and try to work in a constructive manner from where we are right now. Communication seems key in such situations - It looks to me for example that if at least one of the authors of draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access could have attended the meeting many of the hurdles of the current situation would not have existed. Can the document editors and David work together towards issuing a revised I-D to be submitted as a basis for consensus?
 
Dan
 


From: Wojciech Dec (wdec) [mailto:wdec@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 2:54 PM
To: Bernard Aboba
Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

Bernard,
 
as explained in http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00558.html the draft has been repeatedly presented, modified based on WG feedback and re-presented (or attempted to).
The fact that now there seems to be some opinion, consisting effectively of adding descriptive text and an author, etc, does not address the basic question of what were the issues with the previous draft that have not yet been addressed? In other words and perhaps fundamentally, before issuing a consensus call we all would like to know what are the issues with the originally proposed draft?
 
Draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-00, which had no data-type/tagging controversy and which was presented at IETF74 was claimed to have issues (that actually resulted in 01). This -00 draft now however appears to bear all the hallmarks of what's been claimed as the "virtual meeting" consented way forward, give or take additional descriptive text. Have the issues have disappeared? Persistently, it has also been claimed that there was no interest in the draft. Is there now interest?
My simple 3 questions were aimed at clarifying all this, but despite asking numerous times received no clear reply other than some stonewalling (eg check the minutes), or a "consensus call" message which was very odd for a non WG draft to say the least. The implied messaging of changing draft authorship was also highly inconsiderate.
 
Now the above is just one of the many bizarre twists in the story of this draft and its "progress" in Radex. I could go on and on, including pointing out chair-101 items like that; enquiries regarding virtual meeting went un-answered; that meeting conclusions have no IETF  binding status; that there is no obligation to attend meetings (esp ones scheduled in a diff time zone); and that having a discussion on draft *without* any of the draft authors present is highly unusual if not down right wrong.
 
The bottom line as I see it is that instead of facilitating WG progress, the activity of the WG chairs has and continues to hinder such progress (eg by refusing to even summarize what are any outstanding issues), as well as evidencing some rather dubious chairing practices.
Generalizing from this experience, I can say that the authors of the draft have the distinct impression that any extensions to Radius are actually less than welcome by the chairs of the Radext WG.
 
regards,
Woj.
 
 


From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
Sent: 22 November 2009 17:07
To: Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Cc: dromasca@avaya.com; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

Woj --

The meetings of the RADEXT WG are openly publicized and are available to anyone (including people who are not physically present).  Presentations and agenda items are openly solicited.  If you would like time on the agenda of a physical or virtual meeting, all you need to do is to post a message to the WG list and your request will be honored. 

In your initial message (see http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00552.html) you requested guidance as to whether it would be better for the work on IPv6 access to proceed with a draft focusing on an initial set of attributes along the lines of the original submission (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00), or whether a combined submission would be preferable, along the lines of the -01 submission.

That is exactly the issue that is now under consideration within the Consensus Call that has been issued.  As noted in the virtual interim minutes, David Miles has suggested that the focused approach would be more likely to result in rapid progress, and other participants at the Virtual Interim agreed with this suggestion.

Since the IETF operates on "rough consensus", it is the duty of the Chairs to engage the WG participants on issues such as these, rather than making unilateral decisions.


Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:57:04 +0100
From: wdec@cisco.com
To: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
CC: dromasca@avaya.com; radiusext@ops.ietf.org

Bernard,
 
this thread directly stems from the minutes of the meeting. On behalf of the draft authors I proposed a way forward and in relation to this I have asked you (as chair) repeatedly for some answers/clarifications. Now, given that at the n'th attempt you are still unable to answer them clearly is telling me and other folks that you're quite simply unwilling or unable to carry out your duties as chair of this WG.
 
Thanks,
Woj.


From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Sent: 21 November 2009 02:59
To: Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Cc: 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

At the Virtual Interim, the RADEXT WG held a session devoted to next steps on the IPv6 access work.  During the session, David Miles suggested a path forward for the IPv6 Access work that appeared to have consensus among the Virtual Interim attendees. 

 

In order to confirm that consensus, the RADEXT WG has issued a Consensus Call to the mailing list (see   http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00636.html).   Please feel free to express your opinions on the list relating to the consensus that was reached at the Interim.   

 

From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 2:03 AM
To: Bernard Aboba
Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

 

Trying for the 4th time now:

 

- could you confirm that what my mail outlined in terms of moving forward is also your expectation? 

- Are you now convinced of "interest"? (and if not, or partially, then on what grounds?)

- could you point out (summarise)the issues that were not addressed?

 

Thanks,

Woj.