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.
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.