Hi Bernard, I agree with your statement that we should let the market decide when it comes to this particular case where we have many different solutions (developed by different SDOs) already. Let me add one more message that got posted to the GEOPRIV mailing list in this context: Lyn Moore said: " Hello Everyone I am enjoying the blame game that some of you are indulging yourself in. Two camps (and I will use company names because it has become obvious that this is what is happening) - 1. Cisco - I want to have location in the home router - presumably because I know how this would work and then I can sell more routers. 2. Andrew Corp - I want to have location in the network - presumably because I know how this would work and then I can sell more boxes. Oh dear folks. After all this time it seems to have come down to this. I am unfortunately I work for a telco waiting for a deployable answer. I am coming to the conclusion that the IETF won't be supplying it. " Ciao Hannes > In reading the messages posted to the list relating to the GEOPRIV WG > meeting at IETF 68, it strikes me that we have a situation in which > a deadlock was allowed to persist for much too long. > > Whether "standard" or "alternative" mechanisms of consensus > determination > can resolve this situation seems almost besides the point -- > a huge amount > of energy and time has already been wasted. > > Looking backwards, many of the IETF's most heated battles did in fact > resolve themselves in clear outcomes, but only years afterwards once > it become clear that one or more of the proposed approaches had little > or no support in the marketplace. For example, recall the > LDP vs. RSVP-TE debate. > > Given this, I would suggest that debating whether the IESG did the > right or wrong thing at IETF 68 is somewhat besides the point. > > Instead, I would like to ask whether we are furthering > the interest of the Internet community by allowing deadlocks to > persist for long periods, rather than quickly recognizing them and > defusing the situation by publishing the competing > approaches, allowing the market to decide which one is "best". > > Cullen Jennings said: > > "Area Directors who manipulate schedules and agendas in order to > predetermine the outcome of consensus calls should, in our > opinion, be > summarily recalled, and if the GEOPRIV working group chairs > believe this > transpired in IETF 68, we urge them to pursue such a recourse." > > Ted Hardie said: > > I urge them not to. Let's try to work this out without creaking into > effect a never-used aspect of our process. Pushing it to > that extreme > looks contrary to our usual effort to achieve consensus; > let's continue > talking to each other instead. If either the Area Directors > or chairs is > no longer willing to talk about the problems and resolve > them, I think > we're in a sorry state. If we've gotten there, let's try and > back away. > > John Schnizlein said: > > There is reason to suspect that the maneuvers in Prague are part of > an agenda to move control over a host's location from the host to the > network operator in order to create a business of providing it. > There is a pattern with implications on the outcome of the WG, not > just procedural lapse. > > Martin Dawson said: > > The conspiracy theory is quite simply wrong. > > James Polk said: > > energy and misrepresentation doesn't make things right either.... > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf