RE: Moving forward

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Soliman Hesham wrote:
>  > On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Soliman Hesham wrote:
>  > > FWIW, there was unanymous concensus in the Seoul meeting
>  > > to standardise all mechanisms being considered at the moment
>  > 
>  > Nope -- I don't recall anything like that.  Could you elaborate using
>  > the minutes when you believe that kind of consensus was achieved or
>  > even asked.
> 
> => Hmmm, After your presentation which included an analysis
> of all current proposals (it was divided in some way that 
> I never quite understood), you and Jonne asked the group
> if there were any objections to moving forward with any
> of the mechanisms and no one objected. I recall this very
> clearly. I didn't read the minutes after the meeting but 
> I was there. I believe this was in the first session.

If this was in the first session, there was an attempt to divide the 
mechanisms to 'opportunistic' and 'zero-configured'.  From the 
minutes:

====
Consensus call (raising hands):
   1) Is opportunistic tunneling needed => many hands; a few hands 
against.
   2) Is zeroconf tunnel needed to be standardized => many hands; 
nobody against.

=> Consensus: both are needed and will be standardized.
====

This is was *NOT* consensus that all the mechanisms be standardized as
you seem to have understood, but only that there must be a
standardized mechanism representing both classes of solutions for
which there was consensus.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings