Re: Conclusion of RADEXT WG call for consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Klaas Wierenga wrote:
> I find this procedure rather odd. I think at the very least you should
> have forwarded the replies to the proper list before the poll closed.
> Far be it from me to suggest any conspiracy, but I find it inappropriate
> to come up with a rabbit from the hat trick after the poll has closed. I
> thought consensus was gauged on the list, not at some private alias?

  I agree.  The consensus on the list clearly was against allocation.
Having the consensus negated by large numbers of "off the record" posts
is a problem.

> I have seen no discussion on the list, apart from Avi's responses
> (thanks for that!), where do all these people all of a sudden come from?

  This reeks of last-minute ballot stuffing.

> Can I ask for some more openness in future consensus polls?
> 
> Klaas (who is ashamed that after expressing his opinion in the meeting,
> then on the list, he missed the final consensus call)

  I would ask that the chairs open the consensus call again, this time
restricting entries to *on list* messages.  If people can't be bothered
to follow the process, then by the rules, their opinions should not be
taken into account.

  Alan DeKok.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>