[Nea] Results of Consensus check on EAP-based PT

[Susan Thomson <[e-mail]>]

We have come to the end of the consensus check period for selecting an
EAP-based approach to PT.

By  my count, the results were as follows:
PT-EAP: 11
EAP-TLV: 8

Since there is still no consensus, we will follow the process outlined in
the original call for consensus check message (see below), where our AD,
Stephen Farrell, will make a decision. As discussed at the last meeting, we
expect to receive a decision in August. The next step after that is to
publish the individual submission corresponding to the selected approach as
a -00 NEA WG I-D, and we will proceed with the normal process of editing the
document within the WG.

I want to thank everyone for participating in the consensus check, and to
those who provided the reasons behind their decision. I especially want to
thank the proponents of the two proposals for providing a framework for
evaluating the approaches. I think the discussion provides valuable input
into the decision-making process and shows that due diligence has been done.

Thanks
Susan

------ Forwarded Message
> From: sethomso <[e-mail]>
> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 16:04:25 -0500
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Consensus check on EAP-based PT
> 
> At IETF81 and several prior IETF meetings, as well as on the mailing
> list, the WG has evaluated the pros and cons of 2 architectural
> approaches to carrying posture within an EAP tunnel method:
> 
> - EAP method 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hanna-nea-pt-eap-01.txt
> 
> - EAP TLV.
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cam-winget-eap-tlv-03.txt
> 
> So far, there has been no WG consensus to adopt one architecture versus
> the other. (At the recent F2F meeting in Quebec City, the consensus
> check at the meeting showed an equal number in favor of each approach.)
> 
> This email is a final call to determine WG consensus on the L2 PT
> approach. 
> 
> The consensus check is to choose one of the following 3 options:
> 1) PT-EAP approach
> 2) NEA-TLV approach
> 3) Neither (please state the reason if you choose this option)
> 
> Please respond to the above question by Tues Aug 16 at 5pm PT. Please do
> so even if you have already expressed your opinion, either at a WG
> meeting or on the mailing list. The answer can be as brief as selecting
> option 1), 2) or 3). If you would like to add your reasons for your
> choice, that would be appreciated too, especially if you choose option
> 3).
> 
> If we have consensus on the mailing list, we will adopt the selected
> approach.
> 
> If we still do not have consensus, the WG chairs and AD (Stephen
> Farrell) have agreed that the AD will make a decision. The proponents of
> both approaches have agreed to abide by this decision. This resolution
> plan was discussed at the F2F meeting at IETF81. This plan was also
> communicated to the list in an email on Jun 30, 2011. No objections have
> been received.
> 
> In either case, the individual submission corresponding to the selected
> approach will be adopted as a -00 NEA WG I-D, and we will proceed with
> the normal process of editing the document within the WG.
> 
> Thanks
> Susan
> 
> ------------------
> References:
> IETF81 audio session (start at approx 44 mins into session):
> http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf81/ietf81-2103-20110727-1256-pm.mp3
> 
> IETF81 draft meeting minutes:
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nea/minutes
> 

------ End of Forwarded Message