Capwap Mailing List: Re: Process in CAPWAP

[Bob O'Hara (boohara) (boohara]

Dan,

Thank you for your email.  I look forward to your response.  As you have 
probably seen from the reflector traffic, CAPWAP is a lively group.  

 -Bob
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca [at] avaya.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 5:46 AM
To: Bob O'Hara (boohara)
Cc: capwap; david.kessens [at] nokia.com
Subject: RE: Process in CAPWAP

Bob,

Thank you for the mail. 

You probably refer to the mail from Dorothy Gellert sent to the list on Tuesday 
6/6 (US time):

'The CAPWAP editors have asked the Chairs to resolve the Mux vs Multiport issue 
# 115, in order to progress the specification.  Based on the discussion that 
has taken place the chairs are in agreement the simplest, cleanest solution for 
this is to add a Mux header.  Barring any unforseen events, we will instruct 
the editors resolve in favor of a new Mux header.

We intend to close this issue by the end of the week, Friday, 6/9.  Please 
review the issue and send any constructive comments to the list by Friday.'


I am looking together with my co-Area Director, David Kessens into the issues 
that you are raising and we shall respond in a matter of days.

In the meantime I would encourage the working group, the editors and the chairs 
to continue to work and seek consensus, in the best possible cooperation 
spirit. According to the traffic on the list during the last few days I agree 
that there still seem to be open issues and it does not seem to be consensus in 
the Working Group.

Dan



 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob O'Hara (boohara) [mailto:boohara [at] cisco.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 3:16 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: capwap
> Subject: Process in CAPWAP
> 
> 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
>