Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:37:27 -0800
To: ietf-ldup@xxxxxxx
From: John Strassner <jstrassn@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Procedure for handling Last Call comments on the Requirements I-D
Cc: johns@xxxxxxxxx, capple@xxxxxxxx, paf@xxxxxxxxx
LDUPers,
thanks for the spirited review of the requirements I-D during the Last
Call period. This memo will define the procedure that will be used to
respond to the issues raised in the requirements I-D Last Call. It is
being written with the WG Chair Hat firmly on. ;-)
First, though, I would like to comment that this draft has been out a LONG
TIME. While I appreciate people analyzing and commenting on the document,
it worries me that most of these issues, which have been there a LONG
time, didn't come out until the second week of the last call period. I
know that everyone is busy, but please do try and review the next version
of this draft in a timely manner.
Now, as far as procedure, these are the steps that will be followed.
First, I will issue a set of memos, each focused on a specific set of
related comments that arose during Last Call. The memos to be issued are
summaries and recommendations on the following threads:
- RE: WG Last Call on the LDAPv3 Directory Replication I-D
- "equally capable" Requirments and Tim Hahn's message
- Comments on draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-06.txt
- several counts (Was: WG Last Call on the LDAPv3 Directory
Replication I-D)
- draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-06.txt terminology
In each pf these five memos, I will summarize the issues, and indicate
where I believe we have and do not have WG consensus. On items that we
have consensus to change the requirements I-D, to add new requirements, or
to clarify existing requirements, I will clearly indicate what is to be
done. On all other items, I encourage the authors of the requirements I-D
to respond to try and attain closure. While continued discussion can
certainly go on, the first goal is to release a new version of the
requirements draft asap. It is crucial that, in order to make progress, we
accept WG consensus. Therefore, at some point, if discussion continues, I
will as Chair ask that the discussion stops. If anyone still has an issue,
then I would request those people to talk in private with me and Patrik.
The cumulative set of memos issued by me will define a minimum set of
changes to make to the requirements I-D. These will result in an update to
the current I-D. Once all of my memos are issued, I would like the
requirements I-D authors to respond within one week to indicate when they
can have an update ready for WG review. In order to maximize time, I fully
expect and encourage the WG members to respond to each memo (which I will
issue as quickly as possible) as soon as they can.
Once the revised I-D hits the repository, we will then have another two
weeks to review the new I-D. Assuming that nothing major is discovered, I
will announce a second WG Last Call, to last another two weeks. If anyone
thinks that this is not enough time, please speak up now and clearly
indicate why. You had better have a very good argument. ;-)
thanks and kind regards,
John Strassner, with Chair hat ON