Hi Bernard,
I agree with your statement that we should let the market decide when it
comes to this particular case where we have many different solutions
(developed by different SDOs) already.
Let me add one more message that got posted to the GEOPRIV mailing list
in this context:
Lyn Moore said:
"
Hello Everyone
I am enjoying the blame game that some of you are indulging yourself in.
Two camps (and I will use company names because it has become obvious
that this is what is happening) -
1. Cisco - I want to have location in the home router - presumably
because I know how this would work and then I can sell more routers.
2. Andrew Corp - I want to have location in the network - presumably
because I know how this would work and then I can sell more boxes.
Oh dear folks. After all this time it seems to have come down to this.
I am unfortunately I work for a telco waiting for a deployable answer.
I am coming to the conclusion that the IETF won't be supplying it.
"
Ciao
Hannes
In reading the messages posted to the list relating to the GEOPRIV WG
meeting at IETF 68, it strikes me that we have a situation in which
a deadlock was allowed to persist for much too long.
Whether "standard" or "alternative" mechanisms of consensus
determination
can resolve this situation seems almost besides the point --
a huge amount
of energy and time has already been wasted.
Looking backwards, many of the IETF's most heated battles did in fact
resolve themselves in clear outcomes, but only years afterwards once
it become clear that one or more of the proposed approaches had little
or no support in the marketplace. For example, recall the
LDP vs. RSVP-TE debate.
Given this, I would suggest that debating whether the IESG did the
right or wrong thing at IETF 68 is somewhat besides the point.
Instead, I would like to ask whether we are furthering
the interest of the Internet community by allowing deadlocks to
persist for long periods, rather than quickly recognizing them and
defusing the situation by publishing the competing
approaches, allowing the market to decide which one is "best".
Cullen Jennings said:
"Area Directors who manipulate schedules and agendas in order to
predetermine the outcome of consensus calls should, in our
opinion, be
summarily recalled, and if the GEOPRIV working group chairs
believe this
transpired in IETF 68, we urge them to pursue such a recourse."
Ted Hardie said:
I urge them not to. Let's try to work this out without creaking into
effect a never-used aspect of our process. Pushing it to
that extreme
looks contrary to our usual effort to achieve consensus;
let's continue
talking to each other instead. If either the Area Directors
or chairs is
no longer willing to talk about the problems and resolve
them, I think
we're in a sorry state. If we've gotten there, let's try and
back away.
John Schnizlein said:
There is reason to suspect that the maneuvers in Prague are part of
an agenda to move control over a host's location from the host to the
network operator in order to create a business of providing it.
There is a pattern with implications on the outcome of the WG, not
just procedural lapse.
Martin Dawson said:
The conspiracy theory is quite simply wrong.
James Polk said:
energy and misrepresentation doesn't make things right either....
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf