|
Hello
Dan,
Thanks,
Woj.
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.
|