RE: discussion topics for the mail list

Well said Mark....sorry bit late in response on this.  My mail queue is a
bit out of control.  I sincerely hope Juha does not 'retire' in totality as
our industry would be all the worse for this.

regards, Neil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: W. Mark Townsley [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 11 June 2003 22:57
> To: Kireeti Kompella
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: discussion topics for the mail list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> >>>1. draft-heinanen-radius-pe-discovery-04.txt: Does this version
> >>>adequately address the Radius issues raised so that it can 
> now become a
> >>>WG document?
> >>
> >>There has been a good bit of open technical participation 
> on this list such that 
> >>the document is taking on a WG tone already. Making it a WG 
> document seems to be 
> >>the next logical step.
> > 
> > 
> > Sorry, Mark, the fact that there is a discussion/open technical
> > participation DOES NOT qualify the doc as a WG doc; by no stretch
> 
> What, would you instead count the number of people chiming in
> with "[I,My company] supports this draft" type comments?
> 
> I obviously thought that the technical participation thus far 
> was supportive of 
> the document. But in case there is any question, I will restate:
> 
> "There has been a good bit of support and open technical 
> participation on this 
> list such that the document is taking on a WG tone already."
> 
> > is "the next logical step" to make this a WG doc.  I think Rick is
> > doing the right thing in calling for WG consensus.
> 
> The actual question that should be raised is consensus of 
> whether or not the 
> mechanism being proposed in general is something that the WG 
> should and is 
> willing to address with a document or not. It certainly helps 
> to have a 
> well-written and reviewed document to articulate this 
> effectively and generate 
> discussion, but the real focus should be on whether the topic 
> at hand is a 
> legitimate WG effort more than on whether a given individual 
> submission has 
> reached some level of readiness or not. I think that plenty 
> of discussion was 
> generated during the previous 2 week call on this topic 
> already. I saw no need 
> to restate Richard Spencer's excellent summary of the results 
> of this discussion 
> and subsequent actions taken by Juha as an individual draft 
> author here:
> 
> http://standards.nortelnetworks.com/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0305&
L=ppvpn&T=0&F=&S=&P=52918
http://standards.nortelnetworks.com/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0305&L=ppvpn&T=0&F=
&S=&P=60930

This type of WG interaction (not to mention the show of hands at the last
IETF 
meeting that caused Juha to continue the work individually to begin with),
are 
all indications that there is strong potential for a productive WG effort,
and 
that at least some (perhaps significant) number of people consider this to
be a 
Good Thing. Not that there is consensus on every last issue the document
raises 
or it is in any sort of final form, but this particular call for consensus
comes 
before the document becomes an RFC, not before it becomes a WG document.

Finally, I will add now that given the fact that Juha is retiring, it seems
the 
perfect opportunity for the WG to adopt the work.

- Mark

> 
> Kireeti.
>