Re: [pcp] Fwd: Comparison of PCP authentication

[Sam Hartman <[e-mail]>]

I was not at the meeting.
I'll note a couple of IETF process points though; RFC 2418 is a good
read on issues like this:

1) This decision would need to be confirmed on the list anyway; a
consensus of the room does not make a decision.

2) Let's say that there were 8 hands in favor of PANA onsame port and 4
hands in favor of PCP-specific.  That's kind of questionable as a rough
consensus.  It's certainly sufficient to say that the room was moving
towards PANA on same port, but 2/3 is kind of iffy for calling rough
consensus depending on the issue and on level of discussion.  Certainly,
if additional discussion doesn't make things more clear, and if we
confirm that the WG is more interested in progress on this issue than
blocking (which I suspect strongly it is), then you might eventually
make a decision at 2/3.
You might make a decision at 2/3 much earlier if no one in the 1/3 cared
much.

I was not counted in the room, so I'll need to be counted when
confirming on the list.  I prefer a PCP-specific solution.  However, I
need more information before I'll be able to say whether I strongly
prefer the PCP-specific solution, or whether it's a weak preference
among similar technical approaches.

I know there are others who have expressed opinions who were not in the
room.  For example I think Alper has indicated he prefers a PANA-based
solution and I believe I recall he could not make the meeting.

I definitely would prefer understanding all the options.

--Sam