RE: RADEXT WG Last Call on "RADIUS Delegated IPv6 Prefix Attribute"

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

Nelson, David <> supposedly scribbled:

> Avi Lior writes...
> 
>> You as chair(s), slowed down other documents that were ready for last
>> call a long time ago to wait for completion of the Guideline
>> document. 
> 
> Readiness for last call is a subjective assessment.  Your opinion of
> the readiness of a given draft may differ from mine (and from
> others).  
> 
>> So why does one document get to go over another document?
> 
> It's a case-by-case readiness assessment.  Not a FIFO.

That should go w/o saying.  However, the fact that it needs to be said begs the question of whom is doing the assessing.  I would think that the authors/editors of a document would be most capable of that judgment, in conjunction with the rough consensus of the rest of the WG (the chairs determining such via the mailing list).  This is clearly not the way this WG works, though (just one example: the 802 draft which emerged horribly broken from the design team & was funneled directly into last call).  I'm not picking on you & Bernard: this seems to be a kind of fad in the IETF, along with the establishment of design teams w/o any WG input & for no apparent technical reason.  Of course, this begs another, more interesting question, that of who's working for who.  I consider the position of WG chair to be a service position, with the major responsibility that (fraught with danger!) of gauging WG consensus.  Apparently I'm out-of-date: I guess we all work for you now.

~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/>