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

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

Hi Mauricio, 

I believe that Klaas has a point here. As WG chair you and/or your
co-chair should respond to Klaas's mail and address his concerns about
the way the consensus call was conducted.
 
Thanks and Regards,

Dan 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klaas Wierenga [mailto:klaas@wierenga.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:56 AM
> To: Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking); Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: 'radiusext@ops.ietf.org'
> Subject: Re: Conclusion of RADEXT WG call for consensus poll for IANA
> #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
> 
> -----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/>