Ted Lemon wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:11 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
Alper, this reads to me like you are operating under the misguided
assumption that WGs have membership, even that you get to decide who is
part of your WG and who is not. This is very dangerous territory.

Look, guys, no offense, but the point of having this discussion here is for us to come to understand how you both have arrived at your positions, so that we can figure out what we want to do as a group. When you start talking about dangerous territory, and when Alper starts talking about politics, it really misses the point. The debate here is not happening for your or Alper's benefit. It's happening so that more working group members can come to understand your positions. Anything you say that doesn't further that goal is simply delaying that process.

For my part, I was undecided about this at the meeting, and I'm still pretty much undecided. And based on how the voting went in the meeting, I think this is an accurate description of where a lot of interested participants are. I've been trying to give you guys the respect of spending some time trying to understand your positions. I know it's frustrating to keep getting clueless questions about a thought process that you've already followed to its end. We're not doing this out of disrespect - we're trying to get a clue. It would really help me, and probably others here, if you and Richard and Alper could answer the questions us cluebies are asking and not waste time trying to convince each other. I don't see that happening without outside intervention, which is what we are here for.

You are absolutely right, Ted.

It's my fault as much as anyone else's that we are even having this discussion in the IETF. I've been a big proponent of trying to bring the DSL community back into the IETF when it needs to develop protocol extensions, and this is part of that effort. My crystal ball is telling me that we are already well on our way to extending DHCP for subscriber authentication in the industry at large, and I would much rather see further development on this done under guidance from the IETF. Thank you for your participation in that.

- Mark


_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to