Capwap Mailing List: Process in CAPWAP

[Bob O'Hara (boohara) (boohara]

Dan,

A few days ago Dorothy Gellert sent an email to the working group on behalf of 
the chairs, announcing a decision on a technical issue in the working group.  
Specifically, she declared that the chairs decided the discussion of the use of 
a mux header vs. the use of separate ports for the differentiation of control 
and data traffic in the protocol to be over.  She also indicated that the 
chairs had chosen the mux header as the method to be used in the protocol and 
set a deadline of today for closing the issue.

As soon as I read her email, I replied and asked that she document the process 
that the chairs used to arrive at their decision.  My background is in the 
IEEE, where the process is clear, transparent, and open to all participants.  
CAPWAP is my first IETF working group.  My understanding of decision-making in 
IETF is that it is based on rough consensus and that the chairs have 
responsibility to determine that consensus.  With that understanding, I asked 
Dorothy to document what the chairs used as evidence of rough consensus on that 
issue, since I see evidence in the postings to the list that there is more 
support for separate ports than there is for the mux header.  At a minimum, 
there is no consensus on this issue.

Since sending that email two days ago, neither chair has responded.  I find 
that quite disturbing for several reasons.  

First, this is an issue that has been debated extensively (and still is being 
debated, regardless of the pronouncement from the chairs).  The working group 
deserves to know how this technical issue was resolved.  

Second, standardization by fiat of the chair does not seem to be in keeping 
with the open process requirements of the IETF.  Perhaps I am being naïve, but 
I don't believe there is a feted inner core (FIC) that is actually developing 
all the IETF standards.  

Third, the time allowed for any response to the email was only three days.  
This is an absurdly short time, given that it is the start of the summer 
vacation period in the northern hemisphere.  It is quite possible that many 
participants will not even see her email until after the deadline expires.  

Finally, if there is no consensus on the issue, the chairs are expressing an 
engineering opinion and should be required to justify that opinion just as any 
other member of the working group.  I don't believe that the IETF anoints the 
chairs of any working group as expert and able to make technical decisions for 
the working group.

I would appreciate your thoughts, as the AD, and response on these items.

Best regards,
 -Bob

Bob O'Hara