RE: RADEXT Milestone revisions

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>]

Nelson, David <mailto:dnelson@enterasys.com> supposedly scribbled:

> Glen Zorn writes...
> 
>> Since the WG Chairs informed us that our draft was outside the scope
>> of the charter, we requested publication of
> draft-zorn-radius-keywrap-09.txt
>> as an Informational RFC yesterday.
> 
> For the record, this isn't an accurate portrayal of the situation.
> Early on, the chairs did indicate that all of your proposed
> extensions to RADIUS, including the keywrap draft, were out of scope.

In that case, you wouldn't mind if I request publication of the rest of those documents?

> Prior to IETF 63, however, we stated that keywrap was indeed in
> scope.  I posted that opinion to the list.  

For the record, I didn't say that "keywrap" is out of scope, I said that our draft is out of scope.

> Further evidence that the
> keywrap work is in scope is obtained by its inclusion in Bernard's
> WLAN attributes draft.    

Is that a WG document?  Or are we to assume that anything one of the Chairs proposes is automatically in scope?  Or maybe keywrap magically became in scope when Bernard included it in a draft?  The interesting questions are how this scope change occurred w/o a change in the charter and whether the ADs share your opinion on this reversal.  

> We discussed the pros and cons of each approach, and speculated about
> requirements for NIST certification at IETF 63.  Going out of the
> meeting, the action item was to continue discussion on the list.  I
> know that you discussed this draft with Bernard immediately after the
> closing of the RADEXT session at IETF 64, because the streaming audio
> captured your conversation.  

Perhaps it also captured the fact that the conversation was an offer of cooperation by myself and his "take it to the list" response was in the nature of a rather curt rebuff to that offer.

> Bernard advised you to discuss the draft
> on the list, and address any issue that had been raised at IETF 63. 

What issues would those be?  The only one I recall is the one raised again by Hannes, which is patently out of scope.
 
> 
> While you may have other reasons to choose to pursue advancement of
> your keywrap draft as an individual submission Informational RFC, the
> work being out of scope for RADEXT is certainly not one of them.  

Every indication is that _our draft_ is considered to be unacceptable by the chairs.  Bernard undoubtedly had reasons to ignore work by WG members that had been in progress for more than a year at the in favor of proposing a novel scheme but I, at least, am not privy to them.

Hope this helps,

~gwz

Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by simply
  listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel

--
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/>