Subject: Consensus Call on Broadband Forum Next Steps

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:52:53 -0800

As noted by David Miles in his post on September 23, 2009 (see
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00444.html) , the Broadband
Forum has a need for additional RADIUS attributes in order to support their
work on IPv6 access over PPP.  

To address the request from the Broadband Forum, the RADEXT WG held a
session on IPv6 access during the RADEXT Virtual Interim meeting on October
13, 2009.  During this meeting, consensus was reached on next steps with
respect to the Broadband Forum request.  The purpose of this message is to
confirm the consensus reached during the interim meeting on those next
steps.  

As described in the minutes of the RADEXT Virtual Interim meeting (see
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00531.html), a suggestion was
made by David Miles to focus  WG efforts on completion of work on IPv6
RADIUS attributes relevant to the work of the Broadband Forum (primarily
IPv6-Address but also potentially DNS-Server-Address).   In order to move
forward, David volunteered to put together a document defining additional
RADIUS Attributes for use in Broadband Forum IPv6 PPP usage scenarios.  This
document would include an overview of the Broadband Forum IPv6 over PPP
architecture, while incorporating relevant attributes defined in a
previously expired document,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp.   Assuming that
the WG consensus was confirmed, David promised to prepare a document meeting
this description for consideration. 

The Consensus Call will last until Friday, December 4, 2009.  If you favor
the consensus of the virtual interim meeting as described above (to focus on
completing a document relating to the Broadband Forum's IPv6 over PPP
scenarios), please reply to this email affirmatively, indicating your
support for David's suggested next steps.   If you oppose the consensus of
the Virtual Interim, please reply indicating your opposition, as well as a
potential alternate way forward.

---

From: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:54:30 +0100

I disagree with the consensus statement below. As stated repeatedly on
the thread, the pursuit of this draft has been a wild goose chase since
the beginning and until further clarification is given, including
actually answering to the draft authors, there is nothing which
indicates that the statement below is not a continuation of this goose
chase. The questions posed were clear and included a clarification of
the intended way forward.
 
-Woj.

________________________________

	From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
	Sent: 21 November 2009 02:53
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: Consensus Call on Broadband Forum Next Steps

	As noted by David Miles in his post on September 23, 2009 (see
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00444.html) , the Broadband
Forum has a need for additional RADIUS attributes in order to support
their work on IPv6 access over PPP.  

	To address the request from the Broadband Forum, the RADEXT WG
held a session on IPv6 access during the RADEXT Virtual Interim meeting
on October 13, 2009.  During this meeting, consensus was reached on next
steps with respect to the Broadband Forum request.  The purpose of this
message is to confirm the consensus reached during the interim meeting
on those next steps.  

	As described in the minutes of the RADEXT Virtual Interim
meeting (see http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00531.html), a
suggestion was made by David Miles to focus  WG efforts on completion of
work on IPv6 RADIUS attributes relevant to the work of the Broadband
Forum (primarily IPv6-Address but also potentially DNS-Server-Address).
In order to move forward, David volunteered to put together a document
defining additional RADIUS Attributes for use in Broadband Forum IPv6
PPP usage scenarios.  This document would include an overview of the
Broadband Forum IPv6 over PPP architecture, while incorporating relevant
attributes defined in a previously expired document,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp.   Assuming
that the WG consensus was confirmed, David promised to prepare a
document meeting this description for consideration. 

	The Consensus Call will last until Friday, December 4, 2009.  If
you favor the consensus of the virtual interim meeting as described
above (to focus on completing a document relating to the Broadband
Forum's IPv6 over PPP scenarios), please reply to this email
affirmatively, indicating your support for David's suggested next steps.
If you oppose the consensus of the Virtual Interim, please reply
indicating your opposition, as well as a potential alternate way
forward.

---

From: "Dave Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:18:59 -0500

Wojciech Dec writes...

> I disagree with the consensus statement below.

Noted.

> As stated repeatedly on the thread, the pursuit of this
> draft has been a wild goose chase since the beginning and
> until further clarification is given, including actually
> answering to the draft authors, there is nothing which
> indicates that the statement below is not a continuation
> of this goose chase. The questions posed were clear and 
> included a clarification of the intended way forward.

To wit, on October 23, 2009 you wrote:

     We're currently planning on a two draft approach,
     pretty much reverting to the state prior to the 
     "merged draft", along with changes to rid of any 
     datatype issues (fingers crossed) and additional 
     explanatory text. Before we proceed on this path, 
     which to some may seem to be yet another goose chase,
     could you confirm that this is also your expectation?

The process for advancing work in the RADEXT WG does not include any a
priori guarantees that any particular draft revision will garner sufficient
support of the WG members to be adopted as a WG Work Item.  It seems like
that's the assurance you're seeking, however.

There have been repeated comments on the list about the design of the
attributes in the -01 draft, including comments about the use of tagging.
You have previously responded that the current format falls within the
blanket provisions of the string data type and that there are precedents for
such usage in other RFCs.  Thus, your query of October 23 was the first
indication that you might be willing to modify the design of those
attributes to meet with WG approval.

The way the process works is that you submit a revised draft that addresses
the comments received on the list, and then the WG reviews the new draft
against the accumulated comments.  If at that point in time there is
significant interest in adopting the draft as a WG Work Item, the draft can
move forward.  I'll remind you that when counting WG members that are
interested in a given draft, and are willing to review and comment upon the
draft, the chairs don’t count the authors.  The chairs need to see that
there are sufficient non-author WG members interested in the work to ensure
*independent* review.

In the absence of a new draft, another WG member, David Miles, proposed
another way forward for a subset of the work in the "merged draft".  The
current consensus call on the WG mailing list is to determine if the
consensus of the list matches the consensus of the WG at the Interim
Meeting.  That's always the way these things are done in the IETF, consensus
must be validated on the list.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:29:40 -0800

As David Nelson notes, it is the responsibility of the authors of a document to revise their document in response to comments submitted RADEXT WG participants.  

The minutes and the issues list (available at http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT ) describe in considerable detail the issues that have been raised with the document.   These concerns range from the basic (insufficient articulation of the usage scenarios) to the specific (compatibility with RADIUS Design Guidelines).   Revision of a document in response to WG comments is required prior to adoption as a WG work item for two reasons:

1. It demonstrates acceptance on the part of the authors in conforming
to the processes and procedures of the IETF which require "rough
consensus" for WG work products.  

2. It demonstrates the interest of the authors to actually complete the work. 

At the RADEXT WG interim, we had a suggestion from David Miles for moving forward which both addresses the concerns relating to context (by discussion of specific scenarios of interest to the Broadband Forum) as well as addressing review comments (by limiting the focus to attributes whose conformance to Design Guidelines is not in dispute).    Given the positive response at the Virtual Interim, we are now attempting to determine whether there is consensus for moving forward. 

Past experience has shown that breaking off a piece of the problem in this way has the potential to enable rapid progress.  At the RADEXT WG Virtual Interim, specific next steps were presented, which included submission of a revised draft along the lines that David Miles has suggested.  Preparation of such a revised draft is not gated by this consensus call.

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:52:33 +0100

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Past experience has shown that breaking off a piece of the problem in
> this way has the potential to enable rapid progress.  At the RADEXT WG
> Virtual Interim, specific next steps were presented, which included
> submission of a revised draft along the lines that David Miles has
> suggested.  Preparation of such a revised draft is not gated by this
> consensus call.

  I would like to see an updated draft prior to responding to the
consensus call.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:44:28 -0800

Alan DeKok said:

"I would like to see an updated draft prior to responding to the consensus call". 

[BA] Since IETF "Working Groups" make progress through the revision of documents in response to comments from WG participants (that is, by doing work), there is no doubt that an updated draft would represent a welcome development.   In fact, it is hard to imagine how any progress can be made without such a submission.  After all, there can be no progress within a "Working Group" without actual work being accomplished. 

At the Virtual Interim meeting, David Miles indicated an interest in producing such a submission, and the meeting participants provided encouragement for him to proceed along the lines he suggested.   Since such a draft would represent an individual submission and the draft submission window is open, it can be submitted at any time. 

Nevertheless, we have received a request for additional guidance (see http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00552.html) and in order to respond to the request, a Consensus Call has been issued.  Rather than representing a formal Call for Adoption, this Consensus Call is merely attempting to determine whether the approach proposed by David Miles (which envisaged a focused draft addressing the open issues and incorporating elements of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00) represents a potential way forward.

Given that the draft which David Miles suggested does not actually exist, I can understand why WG participants might feel some level of discomfort in rendering a judgment on its suitability, particularly since the issues raised in previous WG discussions (listed on the RADEXT WG Issue list at http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT) have remained unaddressed for some time.   Just as most of us are uncomfortable with signing a blank check, there may naturally be concern that the results of the Consensus Call could be misinterpreted as a blanket endorsement for a subsequent revision, regardless of its contents.  

While we certainly do not want to encourage such a mis-interpretation, given the lack of progress thus far and the repeated requests for "guidance", the Consensus Call seemed like the best way to address the specific question that was asked on the list. 

However, this is not the only way to make progress.  For those not comfortable responding to the Consensus Call, it is still possible to contribute in other ways.  As you alluded to, the foremost way would be to submit a draft addressing the issues that have been raised in previous WG discussions in physical and virtual meetings as well as on the list.  However, an alternative way to contribute would be by submitting reviews of one or more of the existing documents, including http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00.

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:23:23 +0100

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> While we certainly do not want to encourage such a mis-interpretation,
> given the lack of progress thus far and the repeated requests for
> "guidance", the Consensus Call seemed like the best way to address the
> specific question that was asked on the list.

  I believe the document(s) can be updated, and should then be accepted
as WG items.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:46:15 +0100

I feel the need to intervene with a question which is also a suggestion
about a possible way forward. Would it be possible for co-authors of
draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp together with David Miles to get
together and provide an updated version of the I-D (adding of course
David as a co-author) which would incorporate the elements of David's
way forward suggestion made at the interim meeting and address to the
possible extend comments and concerns expressed relative to
draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00? The WG members could address better
the consensus question with a document in front of them in my opinion. 
 
Dan

	From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
	Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:44 PM
	To: Alan DeKok
	Cc: David B. Nelson; [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: Consensus Call on Broadband Forum Next Steps

	Alan DeKok said:
	
	"I would like to see an updated draft prior to responding to the
consensus call". 
	
	[BA] Since IETF "Working Groups" make progress through the
revision of documents in response to comments from WG participants (that
is, by doing work), there is no doubt that an updated draft would
represent a welcome development.   In fact, it is hard to imagine how
any progress can be made without such a submission.  After all, there
can be no progress within a "Working Group" without actual work being
accomplished. 
	
	At the Virtual Interim meeting, David Miles indicated an
interest in producing such a submission, and the meeting participants
provided encouragement for him to proceed along the lines he suggested.
Since such a draft would represent an individual submission and the
draft submission window is open, it can be submitted at any time. 
	
	Nevertheless, we have received a request for additional guidance
(see http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00552.html) and in
order to respond to the request, a Consensus Call has been issued.
Rather than representing a formal Call for Adoption, this Consensus Call
is merely attempting to determine whether the approach proposed by David
Miles (which envisaged a focused draft addressing the open issues and
incorporating elements of
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00)
represents a potential way forward.
	
	Given that the draft which David Miles suggested does not
actually exist, I can understand why WG participants might feel some
level of discomfort in rendering a judgment on its suitability,
particularly since the issues raised in previous WG discussions (listed
on the RADEXT WG Issue list at http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT)
have remained unaddressed for some time.   Just as most of us are
uncomfortable with signing a blank check, there may naturally be concern
that the results of the Consensus Call could be misinterpreted as a
blanket endorsement for a subsequent revision, regardless of its
contents.  
	
	While we certainly do not want to encourage such a
mis-interpretation, given the lack of progress thus far and the repeated
requests for "guidance", the Consensus Call seemed like the best way to
address the specific question that was asked on the list. 
	
	However, this is not the only way to make progress.  For those
not comfortable responding to the Consensus Call, it is still possible
to contribute in other ways.  As you alluded to, the foremost way would
be to submit a draft addressing the issues that have been raised in
previous WG discussions in physical and virtual meetings as well as on
the list.  However, an alternative way to contribute would be by
submitting reviews of one or more of the existing documents, including
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00.

---

From: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:57:05 +0100

Hello Dan,
 
that was pretty much the gist of my proposal, which I sought to obtain
confirmation on (and so far not received one) in terms of a next step.
Descriptive text aside, technically it would appear to be very much
identical to
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-00> -00,
if not an earlier version, however none of the authors is willing to
spend more editing time and do "yet another round" only to arrive at
hear more claims of "previous issues not addressed". What are/were these
issues? It goes without saying, that with the exception of the data-type
issue the reasons for why even the last draft
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-01> -01
has been objected to are unclear. As such we are still expecting a
response to the questions posed, while tentatively planning to
re-present a souped up version of the earlier draft(s).
 
Thanks,
Woj.

	From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
	Sent: 23 November 2009 12:46
	To: Bernard Aboba; Alan DeKok
	Cc: David B. Nelson; [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: Consensus Call on Broadband Forum Next Steps

	I feel the need to intervene with a question which is also a
suggestion about a possible way forward. Would it be possible for
co-authors of draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp together with David Miles
to get together and provide an updated version of the I-D (adding of
course David as a co-author) which would incorporate the elements of
David's way forward suggestion made at the interim meeting and address
to the possible extend comments and concerns expressed relative to
draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00? The WG members could address better
the consensus question with a document in front of them in my opinion. 
	 
	Dan

		Subject: RE: Consensus Call on Broadband Forum Next
Steps

		Alan DeKok said:
		
		"I would like to see an updated draft prior to
responding to the consensus call". 
		
		[BA] Since IETF "Working Groups" make progress through
the revision of documents in response to comments from WG participants
(that is, by doing work), there is no doubt that an updated draft would
represent a welcome development.   In fact, it is hard to imagine how
any progress can be made without such a submission.  After all, there
can be no progress within a "Working Group" without actual work being
accomplished. 

		Nevertheless, we have received a request for additional
guidance (see http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00552.html)
and in order to respond to the request, a Consensus Call has been
issued.  Rather than representing a formal Call for Adoption, this
Consensus Call is merely attempting to determine whether the approach
proposed by David Miles (which envisaged a focused draft addressing the
open issues and incorporating elements of
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00)
represents a potential way forward.
		
		Given that the draft which David Miles suggested does
not actually exist, I can understand why WG participants might feel some
level of discomfort in rendering a judgment on its suitability,
particularly since the issues raised in previous WG discussions (listed
on the RADEXT WG Issue list at http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT)
have remained unaddressed for some time.   Just as most of us are
uncomfortable with signing a blank check, there may naturally be concern
that the results of the Consensus Call could be misinterpreted as a
blanket endorsement for a subsequent revision, regardless of its
contents.  

		However, this is not the only way to make progress.  For
those not comfortable responding to the Consensus Call, it is still
possible to contribute in other ways.  As you alluded to, the foremost
way would be to submit a draft addressing the issues that have been
raised in previous WG discussions in physical and virtual meetings as
well as on the list.  However, an alternative way to contribute would be
by submitting reviews of one or more of the existing documents,
including
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00.

---

From: "Dave Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:21:26 -0500

> What are/were these issues?

Issues are listed in the RADEXT Issues Tracker, located at:

http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/

The issues on your draft are 317, 321, 322.

In addition, there are discussions that are logged in the RADEXT WG mailing
list archives.

> As such we are still expecting a response to the questions posed,
> while tentatively planning to re-present a souped up version of
> the earlier draft(s).

The only question that I'm aware of is your question of October 23, that is
to say, "If we address the attribute design issues can this draft move
forward"?

That's not the way the WG works.  There are no shortcuts to addressing
commentary and posting revised drafts.  Your current draft is at -01, so
it's not like there has been a *lot* of revision activity.  The best way
forward is to propose *specific* text revisions to address outstanding
comments.  You can do that either by submitting a revised draft, or by
submitting sections of OLD and NEW text to the mailing list to show the WG
what changes you propose to make in the next draft revision. In many ways,
that's actually preferable.

---

From: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:54:14 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Nelson
> Sent: 23 November 2009 14:21
> To: Wojciech Dec (wdec); 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; 'Bernard 
> Aboba'; 'Alan DeKok'
> Cc: [email-masked]

Thanks, odd that it took so many attempts at getting this answer. That said, 321 applied (applies?) to draft-sarikaya-radext-prefix-authorization, which was not part of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-00.
317 applies to draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-01 and has been noted and discussed.

On the other hand 322 is quite clearly applicable to any of the drafts including what appears to have been finally understood at the illuminative virtual gathering. Does it still apply? Ie is there still a need to detail the "service aspect" 322 is asking for? Oddly, if one looks at other Radius draft there isn't quite much more than what's in our draft today.

> 
> In addition, there are discussions that are logged in the 
> RADEXT WG mailing list archives.
> 
> > while tentatively planning to re-present a souped up version of the 
> > earlier draft(s).
> 
> The only question that I'm aware of is your question of 
> October 23, that is to say, "If we address the attribute 
> design issues can this draft move forward"?

Uhm... Perhaps reading the follow may help?
#1 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00552.html
#2 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00558.html
#3 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00562.html
#4 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00635.html

> 
> That's not the way the WG works.  There are no shortcuts to 
> addressing commentary and posting revised drafts.  Your 
> current draft is at -01, so it's not like there has been a 
> *lot* of revision activity.  The best way forward is to 

I'm sorry, the draft history is presented at https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00558.html
It would now be 04/05 if not for all the direction/name changes as asked for by the chairs of this WG (!!)

-Woj.

> propose *specific* text revisions to address outstanding 
> comments.  You can do that either by submitting a revised 
> draft, or by submitting sections of OLD and NEW text to the 
> mailing list to show the WG what changes you propose to make 
> in the next draft revision. In many ways, that's actually preferable.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to 
> [email-masked] with the word 'unsubscribe' in 
> a single line as the message text body.

---

From: "David B. Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:38:29 -0500

On Nov 23, 2009, at 4:54 PM, Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote:

> Thanks, odd that it took so many attempts at getting this answer.

Sorry.   I didn't realize that's what you were asking.  After all, the  
location of the Issues Tracker is well know to regular RADEXT WG  
members, is listed on the WG charter page, is included in the  
instructions for all WGLC, etc.

> On the other hand 322 is quite clearly applicable to any of the
> drafts including what appears to have been finally understood
> at the illuminative virtual gathering. Does it still apply? Ie is  
> there
> still a need to detail the "service aspect" 322 is asking for? Oddly,
> if one looks at other Radius draft there isn't quite much more than
> what's in our draft today.

RADIUS is all about provisioning well-know services.  We explicitly  
discourage defining new services within the scope of a RADIUS  
document.  Further, if there is no a convenient reference, e.g. a  
Section of an RFC, that clearly and unambiguously describes *exactly*  
what the RADIUS Attribute in question is intended to provision, then  
some added detail needs to be provided.  When I say "exactly", I mean  
without addition, deletion or transformation.

> #1 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00552.html

Q: We're currently planning on a two draft approach, pretty much  
reverting to the state prior to the "merged draft", along with changes  
to rid of any datatype issues (fingers crossed) and additional  
explanatory text. Before we proceed on this path, which to some may  
seem to be yet another goose chase, could you confirm that this is  
also your expectation?

A: That's the subject of the currently ongoing consensus call.

Q:  Are you now convinced of "interest"?

A:  Interest is measured by non-author reviewers who actively  
contribute commentary on the WG mailing list.

> #2 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00558.html

Nothing in that message ends with a "?".

> #3 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00562.html

Q: could you point out (summarise) the issues that were not addressed?

A: Asked and answered.

> #4 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00635.html

Duplicate questions.