Subject: discussion topics for the mail list

From: "Rick Wilder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:11:58 -0400

I'd like to call a 2-week discussion period on this list for the
following topics:

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?
 
2. draft-guichard-pe-ce-addr-02.txt: Should this become a WG document?

3. What direction should the WG take for L3 VPN authentication?
draft-behringer-mpls-vpn-auth-02.txt has been discussed some. Earlier,
the WG took a look at draft-bonica-l3vpn-auth-00.txt. Do we have a draft
we want to adopt as a WG document?

---

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:47:04 +0200

> adequately address the Radius issues raised so that it can now become a

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.

- Mark

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:24:10 -0700 (PDT)

> the document is taking on a WG tone already. Making it a WG document seems to be 

Sorry, Mark, the fact that there is a discussion/open technical
participation DOES NOT qualify the doc as a WG doc; by no stretch
is "the next logical step" to make this a WG doc.  I think Rick is
doing the right thing in calling for WG consensus.

This is not a statement of my support or dissent for this document,
just a commentary on process.

Kireeti.

---

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 23:56:38 +0200

> 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."

> 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

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:51:27 -0700

Mark,

> >>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.
> > 
> > 
> 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."
> 
> reached some level of readiness or not. 

We can argue on what should be the "the actual question that should be
raised", but that is *not* the topic of this discussion. This discussion is
about the specific document, namely draft-heinanen-radius-pe-discovery-04.txt.

Yakov.

P.S. Since Rick asked for WG consensus, I don't think that 
draft-heinanen-radius-pe-discovery-04.txt is ready to be the WG document.

---

From: Juha Heinanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:10:01 +0300

> draft-heinanen-radius-pe-discovery-04.txt is ready to be the WG document.

could you be more specific, why you think that that is the case?  it
don't think that it is enough that someone doesn't like the idea, since noone
likes every idea.  me for instance don't like any bgp based proposal,
but still i have not started a campaign against them, because i feel
that other people are free to do what they like and it doesn't bother
me.

-- juha

---

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:05:30 +0200

> about the specific document, namely draft-heinanen-radius-pe-discovery-04.txt.

I believe Kireeti took the thread in this direction when he said:

"This is not a statement of my support or dissent for this document,
just a commentary on process."

However, if it is OK with him, I would be happy to get back to the discussion 
about draft-heinanen-radius-pe-discovery-04.txt. As such, could you kindly 
identify why you think this draft should not be a WG document?