Consensus on CUI Usage and Applicability

[Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>]

One of the guidelines for IETF work is "rough consensus and running code".

Looking over the recent WG discussion on CUI usage and applicability, it
is difficult to discern much in the way of consensus.  With respect to
quite a few points (opacity, backward compatibility, NAS vs. Proxy vs.
Server) RADEXT WG participants appear to be deeply divided.

If the RADEXT WG cannot come to consensus on what CUI is intended to
achieve and how it is to be used, then it seems unlikely that we will be
able to make progress on completing this work item.  Therefore it is
important for us to make progress on this, and figure out why opinions
are so divergent.

There are several potential explanations for the wide range of
opinions that have been expressed:

a. People are looking at CUI to solve several different problems.
Depending on the problem of interest, the usage and applicability may
differ substantially.  If this is the case, then we may be able to make
progress by specifying the usage scenarios and describing how CUI can be
used in each situation, omitting the scenarios on which the WG cannot come
to consensus.

b. Within a given usage scenario there may be differences as to the use
and applicability of CUI.  If this is the problem, then we will not be
able to proceed on that usage scenario.  Hopefully, this won't be
the case for all usage scenarios.

c. There is confusion about the usage of the existing Class attribute
and that is affecting people's opinions on how CUI would be used. If this
is the problem, then further discussion and clarifications within the
specification should help.

Based on the discussion so far, my guess is that a) may be closer to the
mark than b).  However, the discussion so far also provides some evidence
for c).

In order to try to find our way through this issue, the Chairs would like
to suggest the following approach:

a.  Have the document editors write up a series of usage scenarios,
describing how CUI would be used within each scenario, and how
backward compatibility issues would be addressed.

b. The Chairs will then call for consensus on each scenario, in order
to isolate what usage scenarios have consensus and which do not.

Our hope is that this approach will identify points of agreement that will
allow the specification to move forward.  We can then focus on the points
of disagreement to understand whether an alternative approach (such as use
of different attributes, including Class) may be required.

Comments welcome.

--
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/>