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

[Klaas Wierenga <klaas@wierenga.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mauricio, Dan,

Is it too much to expect a response to my e-mail? It is not even that I
care *that* much about the issue at hand, but I find the style of
communication (or rather the lack thereof) extremely disappointing.....

Klaas

On 6/26/11 2:25 PM, Klaas Wierenga wrote:
> On 6/24/11 9:42 PM, Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking) wrote:
> 
> Mauricio,
> 
> 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 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? And does it matter what company they represent? I
> was under the impression that "we are all individuals".....
> 
> 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)
> 
> 
>> After discussion between current chairs and AD, the conclusion we 
>> have reached is to approve this request as we believe rough
>> consensus for approval has been achieved.  The situation is bit
>> peculiar in that a number of industry individuals expressed
>> themselves in favor of approving the request, but sent their email
>> to the incorrect email address (owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org rather
>> than radiusext@ops.ietf.org).  I have attached the emails for all
>> those individuals who used the incorrect address.
> 
>> The chairs appreciate the spirited conversation arising from this 
>> topic and do agree with the long-term RADIUS experts that these
>> new types are not entirely in-line given the definition and past
>> usage of the attribute.   However, the chairs feel the misalignment
>> between these new types and the attribute definition is not
>> sufficiently large to warrant disallowing the allocation.  We also
>> took into account the industry support for immediate usage of these
>> types into account.
> 
>> So as to improve the usability of these new values, we will be
>> asking IANA to include references to the appropriate WiMAX
>> standards (and sections if available) in the IANA registry.   Avi:
>> We'd appreciate your assistance in getting us the right information
>> to include.
> 
>> If after this decision the WG would like to continue exploring a 
>> generalized solution to similar use cases, the chairs and AD are 
>> supportive.
> 
>> -MS
> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>  Final count In Favor Clearwire - Dave McGiniss, David Holmes ZTE
>> - Chu Li Alcatel - Pertez Feder Intel - Muthiah Venkatachala Huawei
>> - Ronal Mao Samsun - Jungshin Park NSN - Seyeedi Shahab Sprint -
>> Mark Lipford, Brent Hirschman Bridgewater - Avi Lior
> 
>> Opposed Alan DeKok Stefan Winter Bernard Aboba Dave Nelson
> 
> 
> -- 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/>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk4aurEACgkQH2Wy/p4XeFJqngCfXBDweUhBoECg7CnT1VQQk69z
Kc0AoKbsOhLXz1HhrKZpNnn6roZaZpIK
=pNbq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
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/>