|
Bernard,
as
explained in http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00558.html the
draft has been repeatedly presented, modified based on WG feedback and
re-presented (or attempted to).
The fact
that now there seems to be some opinion, consisting effectively of adding
descriptive text and an author, etc, does not address the basic
question of what were the issues with the previous draft that have not yet
been addressed? In other words and perhaps fundamentally, before issuing a
consensus call we all would like to know what are the issues with the
originally proposed draft?
Draft
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-00,
which had no data-type/tagging controversy and which was presented at
IETF74 was claimed to have issues (that actually resulted in 01). This -00 draft
now however appears to bear all the hallmarks of what's been claimed as the
"virtual meeting" consented way forward, give or take additional
descriptive text. Have the issues have disappeared?
Persistently, it has also been claimed that there
was no interest in the draft. Is there now
interest?
My simple 3 questions
were aimed at clarifying all this, but despite asking numerous times received no
clear reply other than some stonewalling (eg check the minutes), or a
"consensus call" message which was very odd for a
non WG draft to say the least. The implied messaging of changing draft
authorship was also highly inconsiderate.
Now the above is
just one of the many bizarre twists in the story of this draft and its
"progress" in Radex. I could go on and on, including pointing out chair-101
items like that; enquiries regarding virtual meeting went un-answered;
that meeting conclusions have no IETF binding status; that there
is no obligation to attend meetings (esp ones scheduled in a diff time zone);
and that having a discussion on draft *without* any of the draft authors
present is highly unusual if not down right
wrong.
The bottom line as I
see it is that instead of facilitating WG progress, the activity of the
WG chairs has and continues to hinder such progress (eg by refusing to
even summarize what are any outstanding issues), as well as
evidencing some rather dubious chairing practices.
Generalizing from this
experience, I can say that the authors of the draft have the distinct
impression that any extensions to Radius are actually less than welcome by
the chairs of the Radext WG.
regards,
Woj.
|