Some comments from me regarding this issue:
First of all, as Ted mentioned, we have to note whether the chairs
themselves complain about the Prague session or whether they
are just responding to complaint voiced to them in private mails.
As I read the mails, it's the latter which begs the question
why the complains haven't simply been sent to the list in the
first place.
Anyway,
On 2007/04/18 22:04, Cullen Jennings <fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
To the particular concerns of the GEOPRIV chairs:
<> Agenda: The Area Directors did meet privately with members of the
GEOPRIV working group prior to the meeting at IETF 68. Indeed, we met
with as many stakeholders as possible, specifically to ascertain how
the group could move forward on a set of contentious issues which had
been unresolved for some time. In the course of these meetings we
solicited input on how progress could be made at the meeting, and
strongly encouraged working group members to find a path to
consensus. We came to believe that focusing on core issues that were
impeding progress, such as the longstanding disagreement on an HTTP-
based Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol (henceforth L7LCP)
rather than ancillary issues like location signing, would be the best
use of working group facetime.
Anybody reading the geopriv list already knew that a number of people
(me included) were pushing for a resolution of the HELD vs. RELO
question. So I'm a bit at loss how one can surprised that this
issue featured prominently during the meeting.
<> Scheduling:
I've no comment on the scheduling.
<> Consensus calls: There were indeed quite a few hums taken in the
GEOPRIV room in Prague. In fact, the manner in which the meeting was
run with regard to hums was not typical for this group - hums were
used liberally to hone in on areas where there was, and was not,
consensus. That much said, not all of the hums were consensus calls
on working group issues; quite a few hums were also taken on how we
should proceed, for example (taken from the minutes):
- HUM : Are you informed enough to make this choice
- HUM: Is it important to solve that today
- HUM: Will the group accept a plurality for the decision?
Coming to Prague I was not optimistic that the WG can make progress
on the L7LCP issue. I was positively surprised by the steps the ADs took
in order to reach a decision.
From my point of view, the ADs did exactly what they are supposed to
do: Listen to their constituency, learn about their needs and guide the
WGs towards progress. In this case the need was for a decision on the
single L7LCP standard.
As I remember the HUMs, this need was not at all in doubt. Everybody
agreed that we should resolve this question in this session.
I did not sense any preference from the ADs for one of the proposals,
only the clear desire to reach a resolution. The sequence of HUMs were
cleverly designed to lead the group towards *a* solution, whatever that
may be.
Cullen Jennings both called the consensus
and cast the last and tie-breaking vote in the room.
I can confirm Ted's account: Cullen just wanted to break the deadlock in
the room (what other options did he have at that point? Toss a coin?).
The Jabber count did swing the count in the other direction, so his vote
was irrelevant.
My summary is thus:
* I was positively impressed by the way the ADs handled a tricky situation.
* The WG got what it really needed and unanimously wanted: A resolution
of the L7LCP question.
All those HUMs leading up to the final question were unopposed, I see
thus no need to revisit them here on the mailinglist.
* The question the chairs should IMHO put to the list is simple:
"Do we need to reopen the HELD vs. RELO decision?"
If there are a number of clear statements that we need to, then we can
go once again and try whatever RFC 3929 offers.
Personally, I don't think the WG's aims are served by another
round of voting. This time and energy is better spent on
reviews and updates to HELD.
/ol
--
/ Otmar Lendl <lendl(_at_)nic(_dot_)at>, T: +43 1 5056416 - 33, F: - 933 \
| nic.at Internet Verwaltungs- und Betriebsgesellschaft m.b.H |
\ http://www.nic.at/ LG Salzburg, FN 172568b, Sitz: Salzburg /
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf