[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Conclusion of RADEXT WG call for consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
Klaas,
It was during discussion between the chairs and AD after the close of the poll that we determined that responses had not been sent to the correct email. I was copied directly on each email, so I didn't notice that emails were going to the incorrect address during the polling period. Otherwise, I would have immediately forwarded emails to the email list. This point of emails not going to the correct email was discussed between chairs and AD and for just this particular request and situation, we decided that we would count the approvals sent to incorrect email as part of establishing rough consensus to approve the request. Moreover, we, the chairs and AD, felt that given (a)the minor misalignment between these new types and the attribute definition and (b) the industry support for this request, that we could proceed forward.
You are right that it doesn't matter what companies individuals represent. I included company names purely as informational and should not be interpreted in any way.
For this particular consensus poll, we actually went through two consensus polling periods. The first was on April 4 and the second was on May 17. We did the second because the first was inconclusive. Did you not receive both?
The chairs and AD have the good intentions of RADEXT in mind and we will definitely keep the group appropriately engaged moving forward.
-MS
-----Original Message-----
From: Klaas Wierenga [mailto:klaas@wierenga.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 5:26 AM
To: Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking)
Cc: 'radiusext@ops.ietf.org'
Subject: Re: Conclusion of RADEXT WG call for consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 6/24/11 9:42 PM, Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking) wrote:
Mauricio,
I find this procedure rather odd. I think at the very least you should have forwarded the replies to the proper list before the poll closed.
Far be it from me to suggest any conspiracy, but I find it inappropriate to come up with a rabbit from the hat trick after the poll has closed. I thought consensus was gauged on the list, not at some private alias?
I have seen no discussion on the list, apart from Avi's responses (thanks for that!), where do all these people all of a sudden come from?
And does it matter what company they represent? I was under the impression that "we are all individuals".....
Can I ask for some more openness in future consensus polls?
Klaas (who is ashamed that after expressing his opinion in the meeting, then on the list, he missed the final consensus call)
> After discussion between current chairs and AD, the conclusion we have
> reached is to approve this request as we believe rough consensus for
> approval has been achieved. The situation is bit peculiar in that a
> number of industry individuals expressed themselves in favor of
> approving the request, but sent their email to the incorrect email
> address (owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org rather than
> radiusext@ops.ietf.org). I have attached the emails for all those
> individuals who used the incorrect address.
>
> The chairs appreciate the spirited conversation arising from this
> topic and do agree with the long-term RADIUS experts that these new
> types are not entirely in-line given the definition and past usage of
> the attribute. However, the chairs feel the misalignment between
> these new types and the attribute definition is not sufficiently large
> to warrant disallowing the allocation. We also took into account the
> industry support for immediate usage of these types into account.
>
> So as to improve the usability of these new values, we will be asking
> IANA to include references to the appropriate WiMAX standards (and
> sections if available) in the IANA registry. Avi: We'd appreciate
> your assistance in getting us the right information to include.
>
> If after this decision the WG would like to continue exploring a
> generalized solution to similar use cases, the chairs and AD are
> supportive.
>
> -MS
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------
>
> Final count In Favor Clearwire - Dave McGiniss, David Holmes ZTE -
> Chu Li Alcatel - Pertez Feder Intel - Muthiah Venkatachala Huawei -
> Ronal Mao Samsun - Jungshin Park NSN - Seyeedi Shahab Sprint - Mark
> Lipford, Brent Hirschman Bridgewater - Avi Lior
>
> Opposed Alan DeKok Stefan Winter Bernard Aboba Dave Nelson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk4HJUMACgkQH2Wy/p4XeFJpOwCdF+yKyZdjhuZdRLGkGrCdsj68
weEAnAiv2I8hkMYF0bQsk096qjFTi/69
=ZmUy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>