Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-megaco-reqs-09.txt

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 13:12:37 -0800

How another WG defines setup for it's tunneling protocol is not in the
purview of MEGACO. AAA requirements are specifically to be handled in the
AAA WG.

Note that I wouldn't be objecting if I thought MEGACO was getting it right.
I see serious problems with the proposed NAS methods in this group. I've
tried to start specific technical debate on these subjects but all I've
received in return is rhetoric. But that's all I expect since MEGACO is not
the WG for these issues.

At 03:05 PM 12/23/99 -0600, Tom-PT Taylor wrote:

>We are setting requirements only for ourselves.  Other WGs can ignore the
>Megaco capability when they write their applicability statements, if they want.
>-----Original Message-----  From:   Matt Holdrege
>[SMTP:[email-masked]]  Sent:   Thursday, December 23, 1999 3:44
>PM  To:     Taylor, Tom-PT
>[CAR:B904-I:EXCH]  Cc:     [email-masked]  Subject:
 >     Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-megaco-reqs-09.txt
>
>That's why I said forward it and note the comments.
>
>BTW, you have (possibly) reached consensus in MEGACO. But the NAS
>section  of this draft is setting requirements for protocols of other
>working groups. You don't truly have IETF consensus unless you get the
>other WG's to agree.
>
>At 02:19 PM 12/23/99 -0600, Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
>
> >The IETF does not require unanimous consent, just consensus.  As far
> as  >I'm concerned, the requirements document represents
> consensus.  >-----Original Message-----  From:   Matt
> Holdrege  >[SMTP:[email-masked]]  Sent:   Thursday, December 23, 1999
> 2:57 >PM  To:     [email-masked]  Subject:
> Re: I-D >ACTION:draft-ietf-megaco-reqs-09.txt  >  >At 12:41 PM 12/23/99
> -0600, Nancy-M Greene wrote:  >  > >As for your comment that ALL your
> comments regarding the NAS section  > have  >been ignored, this is simply
> not true! Your comments have been > discussed  >several times on the
> mailing list. As editor, I have tried to > come up with  >compromise text
> again and again, and every time, you come > back saying I  >haven't yet
> succeeded in satisfying your wishes.  >  >Can you try addressing my NAS
> comments on A through H? I tried for  >detail  this time so hopefully you
> can do the same.  >  >Otherwise perhaps Tom can just forward the draft to
> the IESG with a  >note  saying that there is not unanimous WG consent on
> the document.

---

From: Nachum Frid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 19:41:47 +0200

Test