ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ADs speaking for "their" WGs (was: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68)

2007-04-20 15:00:04
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 04:56:38PM -0400, Jeffrey I. Schiller wrote:
But the more serious case involved IPSEC. The situation was thus:

~20 people  for one proposal.
~20 people  for a different proposal
~150 people for "someone please decide so we can go off and
                 implement!"

So I read the consensus as "We want this solved." I then asked the
authors of the two proposals if they could come to consensus by
September 1, 1996 (this was in March of 1996). They said they would
try. On August 29th I received a phone call telling me that they tried,
but could not agree.

So I decided.

I chose one of the proposals and wrote up my decision and sent it to the
WG list. I outlined my decision criteria, and how I viewed each proposal
against the criteria, finally offering to publish the "losing" proposal
as informational documents.

My one regret is that I didn't publish my decision as an RFC. Just
didn't think about it. I may dig it out of my e-mail archives and
publish it at some point (with some additional historic background) as a
historical RFC. The more time I get to refer to it, the more it makes
sense to publish it.

For people who are interested in reading Jeff's writeup, it can be
found here:   (nothing ever disappears from the internet :-)

http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ipsec/1996/09/msg00096.html

                                                - Ted

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf