|
I feel the
need to intervene with a question which is also a suggestion about a
possible way forward. Would it be possible for co-authors of draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp
together with David Miles to get together and provide
an updated version of the I-D (adding of course David as a co-author) which
would incorporate the elements of David's way forward suggestion made at the
interim meeting and address to the possible extend comments and concerns
expressed relative to draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00? The WG members could
address better the consensus question with a document in front of them in my
opinion.
Dan
Alan DeKok said:
"I would like to see an updated draft prior
to responding to the consensus call".
[BA] Since IETF "Working Groups"
make progress through the revision of documents in response to comments from
WG participants (that is, by doing work), there is no doubt that an updated
draft would represent a welcome development. In fact, it is hard
to imagine how any progress can be made without such a submission. After
all, there can be no progress within a "Working Group" without actual work
being accomplished.
At the Virtual Interim meeting, David Miles
indicated an interest in producing such a submission, and the meeting
participants provided encouragement for him to proceed along the lines he
suggested. Since such a draft would represent an individual
submission and the draft submission window is open, it can be submitted at any
time.
Nevertheless, we have received a request for additional guidance
(see http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00552.html) and in order to
respond to the request, a Consensus Call has been issued. Rather than
representing a formal Call for Adoption, this Consensus Call is merely
attempting to determine whether the approach proposed by David Miles (which
envisaged a focused draft addressing the open issues and incorporating
elements of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00)
represents a potential way forward.
Given that the draft which David
Miles suggested does not actually exist, I can understand why WG participants
might feel some level of discomfort in rendering a judgment on its
suitability, particularly since the issues raised in previous WG discussions
(listed on the RADEXT WG Issue list at http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT)
have remained unaddressed for some time. Just as most of us are
uncomfortable with signing a blank check, there may naturally be concern that
the results of the Consensus Call could be misinterpreted as a blanket
endorsement for a subsequent revision, regardless of its contents.
While we certainly do not want to encourage such a mis-interpretation,
given the lack of progress thus far and the repeated requests for "guidance",
the Consensus Call seemed like the best way to address the specific question
that was asked on the list.
However, this is not the only way to make
progress. For those not comfortable responding to the Consensus Call, it
is still possible to contribute in other ways. As you alluded to, the
foremost way would be to submit a draft addressing the issues that have been
raised in previous WG discussions in physical and virtual meetings as well as
on the list. However, an alternative way to contribute would be by
submitting reviews of one or more of the existing documents, including
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00.
|