|
-Woj.
I suggest
to everybody to cool down a little and try to work in a constructive manner
from where we are right now. Communication seems key in such situations - It
looks to me for example that if at least one of the authors of
draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access could have attended the meeting many of the hurdles of the
current situation would not have existed. Can the document editors and David
work together towards issuing a revised I-D to be submitted as a basis for
consensus?
Dan
Bernard,
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?
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.
Woj --
The meetings of the RADEXT WG are openly
publicized and are available to anyone (including people who are not
physically present). Presentations and agenda items are openly
solicited. If you would like time on the agenda of a physical or
virtual meeting, all you need to do is to post a message to the WG list
and your request will be honored.
In your initial message
(see http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00552.html) you requested
guidance as to whether it would be better for the work on IPv6 access to
proceed with a draft focusing on an initial set of attributes along the
lines of the original submission
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00), or
whether a combined submission would be preferable, along the lines of the
-01 submission.
That is exactly the issue that is now under
consideration within the Consensus Call that has been issued. As
noted in the virtual interim minutes, David Miles has suggested that the
focused approach would be more likely to result in rapid progress, and
other participants at the Virtual Interim agreed with this suggestion.
Since the IETF operates on "rough consensus", it is the duty of
the Chairs to engage the WG participants on issues such as these, rather
than making unilateral decisions.
Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes
Date: Sun, 22 Nov
2009 11:57:04 +0100
From: wdec@cisco.com
To:
bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
CC: dromasca@avaya.com;
radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Bernard,
this thread directly stems from the minutes of the
meeting. On behalf of the draft authors I proposed a way
forward and in relation to this I have asked you (as
chair) repeatedly for some answers/clarifications. Now, given that at
the n'th attempt you are still unable to answer them clearly is
telling me and other folks that you're quite simply unwilling or
unable to carry out your duties as chair of this WG.
Thanks,
Woj.
At
the Virtual Interim, the RADEXT WG held a session devoted to next steps
on the IPv6 access work. During the session, David Miles suggested
a path forward for the IPv6 Access work that appeared to have consensus
among the Virtual Interim attendees.
In
order to confirm that consensus, the RADEXT WG has issued a Consensus
Call to the mailing list (see
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00636.html).
Please feel free to express your opinions on the list relating to
the consensus that was reached at the Interim.
From:
owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Sent: Friday, November 20,
2009 2:03 AM
To: Bernard Aboba
Cc: Romascanu, Dan
(Dan); radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT
Virtual Interim Minutes
Trying
for the 4th time now:
-
could you
confirm that what my mail outlined in terms of moving
forward is also your expectation?
- Are you now
convinced of "interest"? (and if not, or partially, then on what
grounds?)
- could you
point out (summarise)the issues that were not
addressed?
Thanks,
Woj.
|