RE: Consensus on CUI Usage and Applicability

[<john.loughney@nokia.com>]

Bernard,

Could we write the usage scenario up in an email, and send it to the
list for a consensus call? That has significantly less overhead than
writing a draft.

thanks,
John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of ext Bernard Aboba
> Sent: 31 December, 2004 01:10
> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Consensus on CUI Usage and Applicability
> 
> 
> 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/>
> 

--
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/>