Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
On 4/19/2011 1:12 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: Glen == Glen Zorn g...@net-zen.net writes: Glen On 4/16/2011 2:21 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote: I agree with Katrin's count for the email poll. When combined with the count from the meeting in Prague (since Alan asked for only folks who didn't attend the EMU WG meeting in Prague), Glen Based upon a policy that was AFAICT created out of thin air by Glen Bernard, who has AFAICT zero official status in emu (but, Glen OTOH, _has_ evinced the ability to count). Glen, your message lacks a certain clarity, which is to say I can't really understand what it means. Hmm, that's interesting. I would have thought that the use of the term 'policy' would have been a dead giveaway, but apparently not. However, I've thrown darts randomly around the room, and managed to find most of them where they landed, and based on that, I think you might be saying the following: Bernard came up with the idea that the chairs should have a consensus call in the meeting and ask for input from those not participating in the meeting on the list. You think this comes from thin air. I'm quite certain that it wasn't Bearnard's idea to have a consensus call at all, nor to pinch-hit for the perennially absent DeKok. If that was not roughly what you were trying to say, stop here and see if you can recommend a translator I can use:-) If that was what you were trying to say, take a look at RFc 2418, the BCP on working group procedures. That document requires that the sense of the room and the list together be taken into account: decisions are made on the list but the people in the room count there. Also, RFC 2418's language encourages something very like what the chairs did. RFC 2418 says: In the case where a consensus which has been reached during a face- to-face meeting is being verified on a mailing list the people who were in the meeting and expressed agreement must be taken into account. If there were 100 people in a meeting and only a few people on the mailing list disagree with the consensus of the meeting then the consensus should be seen as being verified. How, exactly, is people in the room vote and then shut up, then people who weren't in the room vote similar to that? That is the policy to which I referred that apparently _was_ made up out of thin air. ... attachment: gwz.vcf___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 4/16/2011 2:21 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote: I agree with Katrin's count for the email poll. When combined with the count from the meeting in Prague (since Alan asked for only folks who didn't attend the EMU WG meeting in Prague), Based upon a policy that was AFAICT created out of thin air by Bernard, who has AFAICT zero official status in emu (but, OTOH, _has_ evinced the ability to count). I think the total is 12 for EAP-FASTv2 and 5 for EAP-TEAM. Thanks, Steve -Original Message- From: emu-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:emu-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37 Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 10:10 AM To: Alan DeKok; emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method I counted five responses: Q1: 5 yes 0 no Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 2 EAP-TEAM Katrin -Original Message- From: emu-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:emu-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan DeKok Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:55 AM To: emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method We had 4 responses on the list, in addition to the discussion at IETF. Q1: 4 yes 0 No Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 1 EAP-TEAM The WG consensus is that EAP-FASTv2 should be the tunnel method. Alan DeKok wrote: For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer the following consensus call: Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled method? Please indicate Yes or No. Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is Yes, please indicate support for one of the two proposed methods: FASTv2 or EAP-Team ... Thursday April 14. That gives us 2 weeks, which is usual for a consensus call. ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNq9XAAAoJEG4XtfZZU7RfuakIAKYsdDLjBfsXkdKQCRQvSxq1 EPYOwruobMBLH3kXUdHJKFkJXsTAkkFXsHl2wa2KpiTyyG1VEpLC7SmQdvZjA2T2 bOmSc4N1e9Kks4oSzh/+zN1Js07T252mnhN+lBEyu+HjcAHtsaCgcw0ZqAM3O+3l Fy1EKp8ZyUmQ18+Q8E9cWpr5cTHlMJxBXW4szDjsQHDHiQoFM0VA2esTdOzYgdzb ps2zH2k4Qkw4MwFizxxCpbw2w8nmeLHrQu46QlXi/zwCdOVcxqkTVw+XMbrEW5Vv /o1BqmlHXfdbxrVX8yIQBjab8gOgO/jmrrTTF/0MIX7hQrT79kCTynjEG/gja/U= =iRgo -END PGP SIGNATURE- attachment: gwz.vcf___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
Glen == Glen Zorn g...@net-zen.net writes: Glen On 4/16/2011 2:21 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote: I agree with Katrin's count for the email poll. When combined with the count from the meeting in Prague (since Alan asked for only folks who didn't attend the EMU WG meeting in Prague), Glen Based upon a policy that was AFAICT created out of thin air by Glen Bernard, who has AFAICT zero official status in emu (but, Glen OTOH, _has_ evinced the ability to count). Glen, your message lacks a certain clarity, which is to say I can't really understand what it means. However, I've thrown darts randomly around the room, and managed to find most of them where they landed, and based on that, I think you might be saying the following: Bernard came up with the idea that the chairs should have a consensus call in the meeting and ask for input from those not participating in the meeting on the list. You think this comes from thin air. If that was not roughly what you were trying to say, stop here and see if you can recommend a translator I can use:-) If that was what you were trying to say, take a look at RFc 2418, the BCP on working group procedures. That document requires that the sense of the room and the list together be taken into account: decisions are made on the list but the people in the room count there. Also, RFC 2418's language encourages something very like what the chairs did. In addition, this particular part of IETF process has made its way all the way to an IAB appeal as part of evaluating the decision te deprecate site-local addresses in IPv6. The appeal response specifically cited the v6 chairs's decision to handle the list traffic in a manner very similar to what the EMU chairs did here--and yes, this was cited as a *good thing* in following our process. So, while the counting may be lacking, the process grounding at least to the extent I'm discussing it here seems quite firm. ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
Q1:Yes Q2: I support using EAP-Team since it more fits for requrements defined in I-D.ietf-emu-eaptunnel-req. - Original Message - From: Alan DeKok al...@deployingradius.com To: emu@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 2:29 PM Subject: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer the following consensus call: Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled method? Please indicate Yes or No. Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is Yes, please indicate support for one of the two proposed methods: FASTv2 or EAP-Team Alan DeKok. EMU Co-Chair ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
Alan, Q1: Yes Q2: FASTv2 Kind regards Stephen McCann Research in Motion On 30 March 2011 13:29, Alan DeKok al...@deployingradius.com wrote: For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer the following consensus call: Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled method? Please indicate Yes or No. Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is Yes, please indicate support for one of the two proposed methods: FASTv2 or EAP-Team Alan DeKok. EMU Co-Chair ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
Alan, Could you set a deadline for these comments? Thanks, Steve -Original Message- From: emu-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:emu-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan DeKok Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 8:30 AM To: emu@ietf.org Subject: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer the following consensus call: Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled method? Please indicate Yes or No. Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is Yes, please indicate support for one of the two proposed methods: FASTv2 or EAP-Team Alan DeKok. EMU Co-Chair ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
