Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

From: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:02:57 +0100

Trying for the 4th time now:

- could you confirm that what my mail outlined in terms of moving
forward is also your expectation? 

- Are you now convinced of "interest"? (and if not, or partially, then
on what grounds?)

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

Thanks,

Woj.

________________________________

	From: Wojciech Dec (wdec) 
	Sent: 23 October 2009 20:36
	To: 'Bernard Aboba'; [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

________________________________

		From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:[email-masked]] 
		Sent: 23 October 2009 20:22
		To: Wojciech Dec (wdec); [email-masked]
		Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

		Wojcejech said:

		"At this point however the draft seems to have been
OK'ed in principle by the WG, and there was no evidence of the draft
having "same negative feedback as had earlier versions" ..."

		In looking through the minutes of the WG meetings I
don't see any indications that the draft was accepted as a WG work item.

		Within RADEXT WG, adoption requires a formal consensus
call, which was subsequently held (with insufficient interest being
displayed so far). 

		The IETF 73 minutes do provide an indication of the
overall reaction to the document, which included objections both in
principle and with respect to the specifics. 

		I can post the individual comments made as Issues if you
like. 

		At the Virtual Interim, David Miles proposed an approach
for overcoming those objections and moving the document forward.  

		Woj> As per my earlier mail(s):

		- could you confirm that what my mail outlined in terms
of moving forward is also your expectation? 

		- Are you now convinced of "interest"? (and if not, or
partially, then on what grounds given the rather abundant amount of
contributors, reviewers, discussion?)

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

		Thanks.

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:59:02 -0800

At the Virtual Interim, the RADEXT WG held a session devoted to next steps
on the IPv6 access work.  During the session, David Miles suggested a path
forward for the IPv6 Access work that appeared to have consensus among the
Virtual Interim attendees.  

In order to confirm that consensus, the RADEXT WG has issued a Consensus
Call to the mailing list (see
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00636.html).   Please feel free
to express your opinions on the list relating to the consensus that was
reached at the Interim.   

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 2:03 AM
To: Bernard Aboba
Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

- could you confirm that what my mail outlined in terms of moving forward is
also your expectation? 

- Are you now convinced of "interest"? (and if not, or partially, then on
what grounds?)

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

Thanks,

Woj.

---

From: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:57:04 +0100

Bernard,
 
this thread directly stems from the minutes of the meeting. On behalf of
the draft authors I proposed a way forward and in relation to this I
have asked you (as chair) repeatedly for some answers/clarifications.
Now, given that at the n'th attempt you are still unable to answer them
clearly is telling me and other folks that you're quite simply unwilling
or unable to carry out your duties as chair of this WG. 
 
Thanks,
Woj.

	From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: 21 November 2009 02:59
	To: Wojciech Dec (wdec)
	Cc: 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

	At the Virtual Interim, the RADEXT WG held a session devoted to
next steps on the IPv6 access work.  During the session, David Miles
suggested a path forward for the IPv6 Access work that appeared to have
consensus among the Virtual Interim attendees.  

	In order to confirm that consensus, the RADEXT WG has issued a
Consensus Call to the mailing list (see
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00636.html).   Please feel
free to express your opinions on the list relating to the consensus that
was reached at the Interim.   

	From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Wojciech Dec (wdec)
	Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 2:03 AM
	To: Bernard Aboba
	Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

	- could you confirm that what my mail outlined in terms of
moving forward is also your expectation? 

	- Are you now convinced of "interest"? (and if not, or
partially, then on what grounds?)

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

	Thanks,

	Woj.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:06:52 -0800

Woj --

The meetings of the RADEXT WG are openly publicized and are available to anyone (including people who are not physically present).  Presentations and agenda items are openly solicited.  If you would like time on the agenda of a physical or virtual meeting, all you need to do is to post a message to the WG list and your request will be honored.  

In your initial message (see http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00552.html) you requested guidance as to whether it would be better for the work on IPv6 access to proceed with a draft focusing on an initial set of attributes along the lines of the original submission (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00), or whether a combined submission would be preferable, along the lines of the -01 submission. 

That is exactly the issue that is now under consideration within the Consensus Call that has been issued.  As noted in the virtual interim minutes, David Miles has suggested that the focused approach would be more likely to result in rapid progress, and other participants at the Virtual Interim agreed with this suggestion. 

Since the IETF operates on "rough consensus", it is the duty of the Chairs to engage the WG participants on issues such as these, rather than making unilateral decisions. 

Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:57:04 +0100
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]

Bernard,
 
this thread directly stems from the minutes of the meeting. On 
behalf of the draft authors I proposed a way forward and 
in relation to this I have asked you (as chair) repeatedly 
for some answers/clarifications. Now, given that at the n'th attempt you 
are still unable to answer them clearly is telling me and other folks 
that you're quite simply unwilling or unable to carry out your 
duties as chair of this WG. 
 
Thanks,
Woj.

  
  From: Bernard Aboba 
  [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 21 November 2009 
  02:59
To: Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Cc: 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; 
  [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim 
  Minutes

  
  At 
  the Virtual Interim, the RADEXT WG held a session devoted to next steps on the 
  IPv6 access work.  During the session, David Miles suggested a path 
  forward for the IPv6 Access work that appeared to have consensus among the 
  Virtual Interim attendees.  
   
  In 
  order to confirm that consensus, the RADEXT WG has issued a Consensus Call to 
  the mailing list (see   
  http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00636.html).   Please 
  feel free to express your opinions on the list relating to the consensus that 
  was reached at the Interim.   

  From: 
  [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
  Behalf Of Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 
  2:03 AM
To: Bernard Aboba
Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); 
  [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim 
  Minutes
   
  Trying 
  for the 4th time now:
   
  - 
  could you 
  confirm that what my mail outlined in terms of moving 
  forward is also your expectation? 
  - Are you now 
  convinced of "interest"? (and if not, or partially, then on what 
  grounds?)
  - could you point out 
  (summarise)the issues that were not addressed?
   
  Thanks,
  Woj.

---

From: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:53:30 +0100

Bernard,
 
as explained in
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00558.html the draft has
been repeatedly presented, modified based on WG feedback and
re-presented (or attempted to).
The fact that now there seems to be some opinion, consisting effectively
of adding descriptive text and an author, etc, does not address the
basic question of what were the issues with the previous draft that have
not yet been addressed? In other words and perhaps fundamentally, before
issuing a consensus call we all would like to know what are the issues
with the originally proposed draft?
 
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-00> -00,
which had no data-type/tagging controversy and which was presented at
IETF74 was claimed to have issues (that actually resulted in 01). This
-00 draft now however appears to bear all the hallmarks of what's been
claimed as the "virtual meeting" consented way forward, give or take
additional descriptive text. Have the issues have disappeared?
Persistently, it has also been claimed that there was no interest in the
draft. Is there now interest?
My simple 3 questions were aimed at clarifying all this, but despite
asking numerous times received no clear reply other than some
stonewalling (eg check the minutes), or a "consensus call" message which
was very odd for a non WG draft to say the least. The implied messaging
of changing draft authorship was also highly inconsiderate.
 
Now the above is just one of the many bizarre twists in the story of
this draft and its "progress" in Radex. I could go on and on, including
pointing out chair-101 items like that; enquiries regarding virtual
meeting went un-answered; that meeting conclusions have no IETF  binding
status; that there is no obligation to attend meetings (esp ones
scheduled in a diff time zone); and that having a discussion on draft
*without* any of the draft authors present is highly unusual if not down
right wrong.
 
The bottom line as I see it is that instead of facilitating WG progress,
the activity of the WG chairs has and continues to hinder such progress
(eg by refusing to even summarize what are any outstanding issues), as
well as evidencing some rather dubious chairing practices. 
Generalizing from this experience, I can say that the authors of the
draft have the distinct impression that any extensions to Radius are
actually less than welcome by the chairs of the Radext WG.
 
regards,
Woj.

	From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
	Sent: 22 November 2009 17:07
	To: Wojciech Dec (wdec)
	Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

	Woj --
	
	The meetings of the RADEXT WG are openly publicized and are
available to anyone (including people who are not physically present).
Presentations and agenda items are openly solicited.  If you would like
time on the agenda of a physical or virtual meeting, all you need to do
is to post a message to the WG list and your request will be honored.  
	
	In your initial message (see
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00552.html) you requested
guidance as to whether it would be better for the work on IPv6 access to
proceed with a draft focusing on an initial set of attributes along the
lines of the original submission
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00), or
whether a combined submission would be preferable, along the lines of
the -01 submission. 
	
	That is exactly the issue that is now under consideration within
the Consensus Call that has been issued.  As noted in the virtual
interim minutes, David Miles has suggested that the focused approach
would be more likely to result in rapid progress, and other participants
at the Virtual Interim agreed with this suggestion. 
	
	Since the IETF operates on "rough consensus", it is the duty of
the Chairs to engage the WG participants on issues such as these, rather
than making unilateral decisions. 

	Bernard,
	 
	this thread directly stems from the minutes of the meeting. On
behalf of the draft authors I proposed a way forward and in relation to
this I have asked you (as chair) repeatedly for some
answers/clarifications. Now, given that at the n'th attempt you are
still unable to answer them clearly is telling me and other folks that
you're quite simply unwilling or unable to carry out your duties as
chair of this WG. 
	 
	Thanks,
	Woj.

		At the Virtual Interim, the RADEXT WG held a session
devoted to next steps on the IPv6 access work.  During the session,
David Miles suggested a path forward for the IPv6 Access work that
appeared to have consensus among the Virtual Interim attendees.  

		In order to confirm that consensus, the RADEXT WG has
issued a Consensus Call to the mailing list (see
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00636.html).   Please feel
free to express your opinions on the list relating to the consensus that
was reached at the Interim.   

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

		Thanks,

		Woj.

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:05:17 +0100

I suggest to everybody to cool down a little and try to work in a
constructive manner from where we are right now. Communication seems key
in such situations - It looks to me for example that if at least one of
the authors of draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access could have attended
the meeting many of the hurdles of the current situation would not have
existed. Can the document editors and David work together towards
issuing a revised I-D to be submitted as a basis for consensus? 
 
Dan

	From: Wojciech Dec (wdec) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 2:54 PM
	To: Bernard Aboba
	Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

	Bernard,
	 
	as explained in
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00558.html the draft has
been repeatedly presented, modified based on WG feedback and
re-presented (or attempted to).
	The fact that now there seems to be some opinion, consisting
effectively of adding descriptive text and an author, etc, does not
address the basic question of what were the issues with the previous
draft that have not yet been addressed? In other words and perhaps
fundamentally, before issuing a consensus call we all would like to know
what are the issues with the originally proposed draft?
	 
	Draft
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access>
	My simple 3 questions were aimed at clarifying all this, but
despite asking numerous times received no clear reply other than some
	 
	Now the above is just one of the many bizarre twists in the
story of this draft and its "progress" in Radex. I could go on and on,
including pointing out chair-101 items like that; enquiries regarding
virtual meeting went un-answered; that meeting conclusions have no IETF
binding status; that there is no obligation to attend meetings (esp ones
scheduled in a diff time zone); and that having a discussion on draft
*without* any of the draft authors present is highly unusual if not down
right wrong.
	 
	The bottom line as I see it is that instead of facilitating WG
progress, the activity of the WG chairs has and continues to hinder such
progress (eg by refusing to even summarize what are any outstanding
issues), as well as evidencing some rather dubious chairing practices. 
	Generalizing from this experience, I can say that the authors of
the draft have the distinct impression that any extensions to Radius are
actually less than welcome by the chairs of the Radext WG.
	 
	regards,
	Woj.

		Woj --
		
		The meetings of the RADEXT WG are openly publicized and
are available to anyone (including people who are not physically
present).  Presentations and agenda items are openly solicited.  If you
would like time on the agenda of a physical or virtual meeting, all you
need to do is to post a message to the WG list and your request will be
honored.  

		That is exactly the issue that is now under
consideration within the Consensus Call that has been issued.  As noted
in the virtual interim minutes, David Miles has suggested that the
focused approach would be more likely to result in rapid progress, and
other participants at the Virtual Interim agreed with this suggestion. 
		
		Since the IETF operates on "rough consensus", it is the
duty of the Chairs to engage the WG participants on issues such as
these, rather than making unilateral decisions. 

		Bernard,
		 
		this thread directly stems from the minutes of the
meeting. On behalf of the draft authors I proposed a way forward and in
relation to this I have asked you (as chair) repeatedly for some
answers/clarifications. Now, given that at the n'th attempt you are
still unable to answer them clearly is telling me and other folks that
you're quite simply unwilling or unable to carry out your duties as
chair of this WG. 
		 
		Thanks,
		Woj.

			From: Bernard Aboba

			At the Virtual Interim, the RADEXT WG held a
session devoted to next steps on the IPv6 access work.  During the
session, David Miles suggested a path forward for the IPv6 Access work
that appeared to have consensus among the Virtual Interim attendees.  

			In order to confirm that consensus, the RADEXT
WG has issued a Consensus Call to the mailing list (see
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00636.html).   Please feel
free to express your opinions on the list relating to the consensus that
was reached at the Interim.   

			- could you confirm that what my mail outlined
in terms of moving forward is also your expectation? 

			- Are you now convinced of "interest"? (and if
not, or partially, then on what grounds?)

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

			Thanks,

			Woj.

---

From: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:12:44 +0100

As highlighted, we (the authors and David) intend progressing on this
approach and have discussed it at the last meeting. However we are
similarly in agreement as to expecting an answer as to what "issues" do
say draft
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-00
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-00>
have, if not
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-01
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-01>
(data type aside). As far as we're concerned addressing previously
raised issues is precisely what led to the situation of today. 

-Woj.

	From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: 23 November 2009 14:05
	To: Wojciech Dec (wdec); Bernard Aboba
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

	I suggest to everybody to cool down a little and try to work in
a constructive manner from where we are right now. Communication seems
key in such situations - It looks to me for example that if at least one
of the authors of draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access could have attended
the meeting many of the hurdles of the current situation would not have
existed. Can the document editors and David work together towards
issuing a revised I-D to be submitted as a basis for consensus? 
	 
	Dan

		Bernard,
		 
		as explained in
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00558.html the draft has
been repeatedly presented, modified based on WG feedback and
re-presented (or attempted to).
		The fact that now there seems to be some opinion,
consisting effectively of adding descriptive text and an author, etc,
does not address the basic question of what were the issues with the
previous draft that have not yet been addressed? In other words and
perhaps fundamentally, before issuing a consensus call we all would like
to know what are the issues with the originally proposed draft?
		 
		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-00> -00,
which had no data-type/tagging controversy and which was presented at
IETF74 was claimed to have issues (that actually resulted in 01). This
-00 draft now however appears to bear all the hallmarks of what's been
claimed as the "virtual meeting" consented way forward, give or take
additional descriptive text. Have the issues have disappeared?
Persistently, it has also been claimed that there was no interest in the
draft. Is there now interest?
		My simple 3 questions were aimed at clarifying all this,
but despite asking numerous times received no clear reply other than
some stonewalling (eg check the minutes), or a "consensus call" message
which was very odd for a non WG draft to say the least. The implied
messaging of changing draft authorship was also highly inconsiderate.
		 
		Now the above is just one of the many bizarre twists in
the story of this draft and its "progress" in Radex. I could go on and
on, including pointing out chair-101 items like that; enquiries
regarding virtual meeting went un-answered; that meeting conclusions
have no IETF  binding status; that there is no obligation to attend
meetings (esp ones scheduled in a diff time zone); and that having a
discussion on draft *without* any of the draft authors present is highly
unusual if not down right wrong.
		 
		The bottom line as I see it is that instead of
facilitating WG progress, the activity of the WG chairs has and
continues to hinder such progress (eg by refusing to even summarize what
are any outstanding issues), as well as evidencing some rather dubious
chairing practices. 
		Generalizing from this experience, I can say that the
authors of the draft have the distinct impression that any extensions to
Radius are actually less than welcome by the chairs of the Radext WG.
		 
		regards,
		Woj.

			Woj --
			
			The meetings of the RADEXT WG are openly
publicized and are available to anyone (including people who are not
physically present).  Presentations and agenda items are openly
solicited.  If you would like time on the agenda of a physical or
virtual meeting, all you need to do is to post a message to the WG list
and your request will be honored.  

			
			Since the IETF operates on "rough consensus", it
is the duty of the Chairs to engage the WG participants on issues such
as these, rather than making unilateral decisions. 

			Bernard,
			 
			this thread directly stems from the minutes of
the meeting. On behalf of the draft authors I proposed a way forward and
in relation to this I have asked you (as chair) repeatedly for some
answers/clarifications. Now, given that at the n'th attempt you are
still unable to answer them clearly is telling me and other folks that
you're quite simply unwilling or unable to carry out your duties as
chair of this WG. 
			 
			Thanks,
			Woj.

				From: Bernard Aboba
[mailto:[email-masked]] 
				Sent: 21 November 2009 02:59
				To: Wojciech Dec (wdec)
				Cc: 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)';
[email-masked]
				Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual
Interim Minutes

				At the Virtual Interim, the RADEXT WG
held a session devoted to next steps on the IPv6 access work.  During
the session, David Miles suggested a path forward for the IPv6 Access
work that appeared to have consensus among the Virtual Interim
attendees.  

				In order to confirm that consensus, the
RADEXT WG has issued a Consensus Call to the mailing list (see
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00636.html).   Please feel
free to express your opinions on the list relating to the consensus that
was reached at the Interim.   

				Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual
Interim Minutes

				- could you confirm that what my mail
outlined in terms of moving forward is also your expectation? 

				- Are you now convinced of "interest"?
(and if not, or partially, then on what grounds?)

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

				Thanks,

				Woj.

---

From: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:36:18 +0100

David,
 
thanks for the support, which is one that effectively amounts to backing
the two draft approach
(https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00552.html ). I will take
you up on contributing the descriptive text to complete an updated
version of
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-00, unless
you have radically alternative suggestions in mind for the DNS, address
and route options.
 
Cheers,
Woj.

	From: MILES DAVID [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: 23 November 2009 22:00
	To: Wojciech Dec (wdec); Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Bernard Aboba
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

	In the interest of moving forward, I would like to take the
crack at this... I noted none of the current authors want to take this
work on - I do and I will. I'll produce a new draft and author it ... if
any of the current authors want to be on the draft please let me know -
i do not get anything for having my name on a draft 

	I truly understand Woj's frustration here but I am here for
short term kicks - I really need to get this gap sorted out and I hope
those that feel stepped on by my course of action can appreciate that
you sometimes need to make sacrifices to get the outcome you need (which
here is clearly some new RADIUS AVP types). I promise to be designated
beer-guy at all future IETF's for those authors feeling hard done by :) 

	-d

	From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Wojciech Dec (wdec)
	Sent: Monday, 23 November 2009 11:43 PM
	To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Bernard Aboba
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

	As highlighted, we (the authors and David) intend progressing on
this approach and have discussed it at the last meeting. However we are
similarly in agreement as to expecting an answer as to what "issues" do
say draft
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-00 have,
if not http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-01
(data type aside). As far as we're concerned addressing previously
raised issues is precisely what led to the situation of today. 

	-Woj.

		I suggest to everybody to cool down a little and try to
work in a constructive manner from where we are right now. Communication
seems key in such situations - It looks to me for example that if at
least one of the authors of draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access could
have attended the meeting many of the hurdles of the current situation
would not have existed. Can the document editors and David work together
towards issuing a revised I-D to be submitted as a basis for consensus? 

		Dan

[mailto:[email-masked]] 

			Bernard,

			as explained in

			The fact that now there seems to be some
opinion, consisting effectively of adding descriptive text and an
author, etc, does not address the basic question of what were the issues
with the previous draft that have not yet been addressed? In other words
and perhaps fundamentally, before issuing a consensus call we all would
like to know what are the issues with the originally proposed draft?

			Draft

			My simple 3 questions were aimed at clarifying
all this, but despite asking numerous times received no clear reply
other than some stonewalling (eg check the minutes), or a "consensus
call" message which was very odd for a non WG draft to say the least.
The implied messaging of changing draft authorship was also highly
inconsiderate.

			Now the above is just one of the many bizarre
twists in the story of this draft and its "progress" in Radex. I could
go on and on, including pointing out chair-101 items like that;
enquiries regarding virtual meeting went un-answered; that meeting
conclusions have no IETF  binding status; that there is no obligation to
attend meetings (esp ones scheduled in a diff time zone); and that
having a discussion on draft *without* any of the draft authors present
is highly unusual if not down right wrong.

			Generalizing from this experience, I can say
that the authors of the draft have the distinct impression that any
extensions to Radius are actually less than welcome by the chairs of the
Radext WG.

			regards,

			Woj.

				

				Cc: [email-masked];

				Woj --

				
				That is exactly the issue that is now
under consideration within the Consensus Call that has been issued.  As
noted in the virtual interim minutes, David Miles has suggested that the
focused approach would be more likely to result in rapid progress, and
other participants at the Virtual Interim agreed with this suggestion. 
				
				Since the IETF operates on "rough
consensus", it is the duty of the Chairs to engage the WG participants
on issues such as these, rather than making unilateral decisions. 

				CC: [email-masked];
[email-masked]

				Bernard,

				this thread directly stems from the
minutes of the meeting. On behalf of the draft authors I proposed a way
forward and in relation to this I have asked you (as chair) repeatedly
for some answers/clarifications. Now, given that at the n'th attempt you
are still unable to answer them clearly is telling me and other folks
that you're quite simply unwilling or unable to carry out your duties as
chair of this WG. 

				Thanks,

				Woj.

				From: Bernard Aboba

				Thanks,

				Woj.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:00:23 -0800

Thanks for volunteering.  

As we discussed during the Virtual Interim, a draft focusing on the Broadband Forum IPv6 over PPP needs has the potential to rapidly address the outstanding issues and enable rapid progress. 

Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:00:18 +0800
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]

In the interest of moving forward, I would like to take the
crack at this... I noted none of the current authors want to take this work on –
I do and I will. I’ll produce a new draft and author it ... if any of the
current authors want to be on the draft please let me know – i do not get
anything for having my name on a draft 

I truly understand Woj’s frustration here but I am here
for short term kicks – I really need to get this gap sorted out and I
hope those that feel stepped on by my course of action can appreciate that you
sometimes need to make sacrifices to get the outcome you need (which here is
clearly some new RADIUS AVP types). I promise to be designated beer-guy at all
future IETF’s for those authors feeling hard done by :) 

-d

 

As
highlighted, we (the authors and David) intend progressing on this approach and
have discussed it at the last meeting. However we are similarly in agreement as
to expecting an answer as to what "issues" do say draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-00 have,
if not http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-01
(data type aside). As far as we're concerned addressing previously raised
issues is precisely what led to the situation of today. 

-Woj.

From:
Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 

I suggest to everybody to cool down a little and try to work in a
constructive manner from where we are right now. Communication seems key in
such situations - It looks to me for example that if at least one of the
authors of draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access could have
attended the meeting many of the hurdles of the current situation would not
have existed. Can the document editors and David work together towards issuing
a revised I-D to be submitted as a basis for consensus? 

Dan

 

From: Wojciech
Dec (wdec) [mailto:[email-masked]] 

To: Bernard Aboba

Bernard,

as
explained in http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00558.html the
draft has been repeatedly presented, modified based on WG feedback and
re-presented (or attempted to).

The
fact that now there seems to be some opinion, consisting effectively of
adding descriptive text and an author, etc, does not address the
basic question of what were the issues with the previous draft that have
not yet been addressed? In other words and perhaps fundamentally, before
issuing a consensus call we all would like to know what are the issues
with the originally proposed draft?

Draft
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-00,
which had no data-type/tagging controversy and which was presented at
IETF74 was claimed to have issues (that actually resulted in 01). This -00
draft now however appears to bear all the hallmarks of what's been claimed
as the "virtual meeting" consented way forward, give or take
additional descriptive text. Have the issues have disappeared?
Persistently, it has also been claimed that there was no interest in the
draft. Is there now interest?

My
simple 3 questions were aimed at clarifying all this, but despite asking
numerous times received no clear reply other than some stonewalling (eg
check the minutes), or a "consensus call" message which was
very odd for a non WG draft to say the least. The implied
messaging of changing draft authorship was also highly inconsiderate.

Now
the above is just one of the many bizarre twists in the story of this
draft and its "progress" in Radex. I could go on and on,
including pointing out chair-101 items like that; enquiries regarding virtual
meeting went un-answered; that meeting conclusions have no
IETF  binding status; that there is no obligation to attend meetings (esp
ones scheduled in a diff time zone); and that having a discussion on
draft *without* any of the draft authors present is highly unusual if not
down right wrong.

The bottom
line as I see it is that instead of facilitating WG progress, the activity
of the WG chairs has and continues to hinder such progress (eg by
refusing to even summarize what are any outstanding issues), as well as
evidencing some rather dubious chairing practices. 

Generalizing
from this experience, I can say that the authors of the draft have the
distinct impression that any extensions to Radius are actually less
than welcome by the chairs of the Radext WG.

regards,

Woj.

 

From:
[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Bernard Aboba

To: Wojciech Dec (wdec)

Woj --

The meetings of the RADEXT WG are openly publicized and are available to anyone
(including people who are not physically present).  Presentations and
agenda items are openly solicited.  If you would like time on the agenda
of a physical or virtual meeting, all you need to do is to post a message to
the WG list and your request will be honored.  

In your initial message (see
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00552.html) you requested guidance
as to whether it would be better for the work on IPv6 access to proceed with a
draft focusing on an initial set of attributes along the lines of the original
submission (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00), or
whether a combined submission would be preferable, along the lines of the -01
submission. 

That is exactly the issue that is now under consideration within the Consensus
Call that has been issued.  As noted in the virtual interim minutes, David
Miles has suggested that the focused approach would be more likely to result in
rapid progress, and other participants at the Virtual Interim agreed with this
suggestion. 

Since the IETF operates on "rough consensus", it is the duty of the
Chairs to engage the WG participants on issues such as these, rather than
making unilateral decisions. 

From: [email-masked]

Bernard,

this thread directly stems from the
minutes of the meeting. On behalf of the draft authors
I proposed a way forward and in relation to
this I have asked you (as chair) repeatedly for some
answers/clarifications. Now, given that at the n'th attempt you are still
unable to answer them clearly is telling me and other folks
that you're quite simply unwilling or unable to carry out your
duties as chair of this WG. 

Thanks,

Woj.

From: Bernard
Aboba [mailto:[email-masked]] 

To: Wojciech Dec (wdec)

From:
[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Wojciech Dec (wdec)

To: Bernard Aboba

 

- could you confirm that what my mail outlined in
terms of moving forward is also your expectation? 

Thanks,

Woj.