Subject: Re: draft-ietf-pppext-sonet-ds-00.txt

From: "William Allen Simpson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 97 23:46:23 GMT

> From: [email-masked] (Charles M. Heard)
> There certainly was no call for consensus.  For the record:  although I did
> participate in the e-mail discussion on the pppsdh list, I take issue with
> significant parts of this document, and I do not endorse it.
>
We don't have votes in the IETF.  The mailing list discussion _is_ the
consensus process.  I could make the assumption that the participants
were ignorant of usual mailing list discussion process, and did not send
their technical contributions in the expectation of a future vote, but
since Tony Li was on the list and is a long time IETF participant, there
is no excuse for him.  Silence is consent.

Joining a mailing list to discuss an issue, and then not contributing,
and then complaining about the result, is simply egregious
obstructionism.

For the record, consensus was achieved because there were no valid
technical objections raised.  All of the questions raised in contributed
drafts and comments were answered.  If there are more questions in this
wider audience, as are being raised at this late date by Stuart, then
they should be addressed.  The IETF has a long review procedure.

However, I take exception when those present on the PPPSDH list (and
that includes Stuart) start raising new objections.  Perhaps they did
not think of them at the time.  But, it really does not help move things
along.  And I feel like the 1/2 time unpaid effort that I expended for 5
weeks was wasted.

Since there seems to be some political discussion about process and
procedures, I suggest that we take that up at the in-person meeting in
DC.  I have already had yet another request that we take this to a
separate mailing list again:

  From: [email-masked]
  As a courtesy to those of us who must deal with a large volume of mail
  from various lists, could you please take this discussion to direct
  email? It has gone way past the point of being useful to the general
  audience.

Therefore, I will make any further responses on the PPPSDH list.

[email-masked]
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Nov 1997 00:16:51 -0800

> is no excuse for him.  Silence is consent.

Excuse me, but repetition of points is not at all necessary. Many others
have made what I believed are the salient points.  They have been ignored
or chided.  The remainder of Mr. Simpson's message is a fine example of
this.

I'll also point out that the PPPSDH mailing list is, as far as I can tell,
not at all under the charter of the PPP WG or any other IETF group.  It's
simply a mailing list.  

If this were an IETF mailing list, I'll point out that the IETF attempts to
guage consensus before decreeing.  If there appears to be consensus on a
mailing list, the WG chair is still obligated to ask for objections.  This
has never happened on this mailing list.  It's my firm belief that if there
was a guage of consensus on the PPPSDH mailing list, that the consensus
would be that scrambling is a necessary evil.

Finally, I'll point out that I have better things to do with my life than
to have email battles.  So I'll take this opportunity to ask Mr. Simpson to
please reconsider his position, remembering that not all things in life are
perfect, that there is a significant deployed base of SONET gear out there
that does NOT operate the way that he would like, that there are several
large corporations aligned against him, and that practicality, not
idealism, will eventually win the day.  I now return to lurking...

Tony