RE: Consensus on CUI Usage and Applicability

["Adrangi, Farid" <farid.adrangi@intel.com>]

Hi Bernard, all

Thanks for the e-mail. In response to your points....

- I think we have reached some rough consensus on opacity, CUI
applicability, backward compatibility, NAS vs. Proxy vs. Server during
our e-mail discussion.   The latest draft (version -01, submitted
recently) provides resolutions to the issues raised in the reflector and
also filed in the issues tracker.  Authors have closely worked with
folks like Barney Wolf who filed initial issues pertaining to CUI
applicability and backward compatibility, and together we came up with
resolutions to these issues.  If the resolutions are not satisfactory to
other folks, then they should submit new issue(s) to the tracker.  

- Authors had a usage scenario for CUI as explained in the draft.  If
some folks think that there are more usage scenarios that need to be
considered, then we would like to see issues (explaining the usage
scenarios an why it should be included/addressed in the draft) submitted
to issues tracker rather than having some random e-mails discussions.
Once the usage scenarios are identified and filed in the issue tracker,
then we can discuss the inclusion of these usage scenario in the draft.
The chairs then can call for consensus on each scenario ....  
  
- On Class attribute, I don't think there are any confusion.  Anyhow,
Section 1.1 (motivation) describes why existing attributes (e.g., class)
cannot be used to solve the problem.  If this is not convincing or
accurate, then we would like to see an issue submitted to the tracker.
And please note that the draft is not intended to provide tutorial on
class attribute.

- Finally, as the next step, we think issue submitters and others should
review version -01 against the existing issues filed in the tracker.
The issues tracker should be updated based on their review.

Thanks again.

BR,
Farid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 3:10 PM
> 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/>