And some more notes 7. The charter says:
"The Operations and Management Area receives occasional proposals for the development and publication of RFCs dealing with operational and management topics that are not in scope of an existing working group and do not justify the formation of a new working group. " 8. This document is competes directly with two existing working groups, RADEXT and DIME, to create a third AAA protocol. 9. As such, this document should be explicitly outside of the scope of the OPSAWG. > On Feb 10, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Alan DeKok <al...@deployingradius.com> wrote: > > On Feb 10, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Alan DeKok <al...@deployingradius.com> wrote: >> There are a host of procedural problems with how the document was adopted. >> I suggest that the document be withdrawn, and re-submitted as an individual >> draft. > > To be clear: > > 1. the document never had a WG call for adoption as required in Section 4.2.1 > of RFC 6174 > > 2. the charter has not been updated to reflect this work. > > 3. the charter says: > > "All new work items and rechartering proposals will be brought for approval > with the IESG." > > 4. I can find no record of this approval taking place. If it had taken > place, the charter would have been updated. > > 5. I had objected to this in person at the OPSAWG meeting in IETF 94. > However, the web site shows no minutes from that meeting: > > https://tools.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/minutes > > 6. I believe that this document is an incorrect technical choice as per > section 6.5.1 of RFC 2016. > > As such, I ask the chairs to withdraw the document as a WG document until > such time as the procedural issues above have been addressed. > > Alan DeKok. > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
