From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: sarikaya@ieee.org; david.miles@alcatel-lucent.com.au; "radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>;
David B. Nelson <d.b.nelson@comcast.net>
Cc: roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it; Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 3:18:16 PM
Subject: RE: IPv6 Address Option
> No. Several people replied. They just supported the call without any comments, but they promised to comment.
In looking at the archive, these are the only people whose response indicated support of the document:
Glen Zorn (author): http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00276.htmlMiles David: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00349.htmlYungui Wang: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00354.htmlAside from these individuals, who else has indicated support for the document? Please provide links to their emails.
>Well, we certainly would be happy to have David on board. However, I think the
document already has an editor, actually two, i.e. Benoit and Glen.We could have three :).
The issue isn't how many editors the document has. The issue is the pace at which the document has evolved in response to feedback.
The IETF isn't a "work for hire" organization that exists to produce work in response to liaison requests. If an SDO such as Broadband Forum wants a document to move forward, then they need to supply the manpower to complete the work, and enough people interested in it to provide appropriate review. Providing deadlines without engaged people doesn't help.
And if some aspect of the IETF process is acting as a bottleneck, the Design Guidelines document specifically provides a mechanism for the Broadband Forum to complete the work on its own, engaging the IETF for review.