[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
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 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
Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
Q1: Yes. Q2: FASTv2 On 3/30/11 8:29 AM, "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 > > 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
Stephen Hanna wrote: > Alan, > > Could you set a deadline for these comments? Thursday April 14. That gives us 2 weeks, which is usual for a consensus call. Alan DeKok. ___ 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" To: 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
Answer to Question 1: YES Answer to Question 2: FASTv2 Regards, Katrin Hoeper > -Original Message- > From: emu-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:emu-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan > DeKok > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 7:30 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
Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
Answer to Question 1: YES Answer to Question 2: EAP-Team On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:29 PM, 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 > > Alan DeKok. > EMU Co-Chair > ___ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > -- Best regards, Zhen ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
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
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
Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
Rough consensus people, rough consensus. How about if our esteemed co-chairmen go behind closed doors and burn some paper. White smoke means TEAM, black smoke means FAST. Dan. On Fri, April 15, 2011 7:10 am, Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37 wrote: > 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
Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
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), 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
Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
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), > I think the total is 12 for EAP-FASTv2 and 5 for EAP-TEAM. I've gone back and reviewed my EMU folder, and Katrin is correct. Sorry for the miscount. As you not, this does not change the rough consensus of the WG, where the majority at IETF supported FASTv2. Alan DeKok. ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
On 4/15/2011 7:55 PM, Alan DeKok wrote: > 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 I think that you should trying counting again. > > 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
Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
On 4/15/2011 11:41 PM, Dan Harkins wrote: > > Rough consensus people, rough consensus. ??? If you're going to go to the trouble of publishing a vote count, you might at least try to make it accurate. > How about if our esteemed > co-chairmen go behind closed doors and burn some paper. White smoke > means TEAM, black smoke means FAST. > > Dan. > > On Fri, April 15, 2011 7:10 am, Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37 wrote: >> 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 > > <>___ 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- <>___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
> "Glen" == Glen Zorn 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
On 4/18/11 2:10 AM, Glen Zorn wrote: -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 asked Bernard to be at the front of the room for this part of the session because Joe was involved in one of the proposals and Alan couldn't be there to do the "count". I guess maybe we could have people call out their names one by one and Alan could have done the count, but having somebody there in person seemed like a good way to go. spt 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- ___ 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
On 4/19/2011 1:12 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: >> "Glen" == Glen Zorn 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. ... <>___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
