Subject: [Mip6] Appeal on MIP6 Consensus Call

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:36:59 +0200 (EET)

Thomas,

This is an appeal to annull the interpretation on 13th Oct [1] of the 
consensus call on standardizing an authentication protocol.

The result was 13 against, and 25 for (Actually, 24 for, because one 
was apparently counted twice.)  The chairs judged this to be rough 
consensus.

I consider this in itself a very rough consensus call, remembering 
that the IETF does vote.  Further, examining those who voiced an 
opinion is revealing.  Of those who responded "yes", apparently 10 had 
not written a single message on the Mobile IP mailing list during 
about a year (and possibly longer).  Further two people had only 
responded to this consensus call, and the earlier consensus call on 
the justification for the authentication sub-option. The similar 
counts for those who responded "no" was zero.

It seems likely that the IETF consensus process has been circumvented 
by "room packing" by a community to achieve a result against 
significant objection to the significant number of active WG 
participants.

Therefore I request that the interpretation of the result of the 
consensus call be annulled; I do not believe there was sufficient 
rough consensus among WG participants to standardize the 
authentication protocol.  (However, there may have been sufficient 
consensus on creating an experimental protocol.)

[1] http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mip6/current/msg01783.html

Thanks.

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

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:07:05 +0200 (EET)

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
> It seems likely that the IETF consensus process has been circumvented by 
> "room packing" by a community to achieve a result against significant 
> objection to the significant number of active WG participants.

s/objection to/objection of/

---

From: Brian Haley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:29:25 -0500

I would tend to agree with Pekka on this, there were enough problems 
raised during the discussion, and subsequently by the Security ADs, to 
raise doubt this should be on the standards track.

I did my own counting, and if you divide it on company/organization 
lines it was 10 Yes and 9 No - that's not really a rough consensus of 
the entities that might implement the draft.

-Brian

Pekka Savola wrote:

> The result was 13 against, and 25 for (Actually, 24 for, because one was 
> apparently counted twice.)  The chairs judged this to be rough consensus.
> 
> I consider this in itself a very rough consensus call, remembering that 
> the IETF does vote.  Further, examining those who voiced an opinion is 
> revealing.  Of those who responded "yes", apparently 10 had not written 
> a single message on the Mobile IP mailing list during about a year (and 
> possibly longer).  Further two people had only responded to this 
> consensus call, and the earlier consensus call on the justification for 
> the authentication sub-option. The similar counts for those who 
> responded "no" was zero.
> 
> consensus call be annulled; I do not believe there was sufficient rough 
> consensus among WG participants to standardize the authentication 
> protocol.  (However, there may have been sufficient consensus on 
> creating an experimental protocol.)
>