Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP

[Richard Huber <rvh@xxxxxxx>]

I'm in favor of option 1.  As noted by Felix and Ryan, a standard way of
replicating data would be very helpful to many users.  And I believe we have
authors to finish up the work.

Rick Huber

Chris Apple wrote:

> Thanks to those who have posted comments so far on this topic.
>
> In the interest of moving forward and recognizing that this is
> a time of year when many of us are spending more time with family
> and friends than reading IETF mailing lists, lets keep the
> commenting window on this thread open until January 15, 2003.
>
> If you've not done so already, please post your reactions,
> comments, etc. on this topic to the list by that date. Then
> John and I will try to make some judgment call on consensus.
>
> I make this second request for comments because I know from
> speaking with several folks at the last IETF that there are
> perspectives which have not been expressed on the list so far.
>
> One thing that seems fairly clear at this point in time though,
> is that the work towards standardizing LCUP has sufficient
> momentum and value to keep it going regardless of how the
> concluding LDUP thread is resolved.
>
> Chris Apple - Principal Architect
>
> DSI Consulting, Inc.
>
> mailto:capple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> http://www.dsi-consulting.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-ldup@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-ldup@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Chris Apple
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:57 PM
> To: ietf-ldup@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Proposals for Concluding LDUP
>
> As mentioned in the proposed WG meeting minutes, there
> are currently two proposals on the table for concluding
> LDUP:
>
> 1) A proposal from the co-chairs. Summarized as follows:
>
> A) Publish LCUP spec as Proposed Standard after successful
>    passage of a WG Last Call.
>
> B) Publish remaining WG documents as either Informational
>    or Experimental after resolving gross inconsistencies and
>    explicitly identifying areas where the WG was unable to
>    achieve consensus in those documents.
>
> C) Reference X.500 BAC in the General Usage Profile as well
>    as the X.500 Administrative Model (perhaps from the drafts
>    by Steven L. and Kurt Z., perhaps directly from the X.500
>    Recommendations themselves)
>
> D) Reference X.500 BAC and Administrative Model in other WG
>    documents as needed.
>
> E) Documents should enter WG Last Call on or before
>    the July 2003 IETF Meeting.
>
> F) Conclude LDUP when last document is published as an RFC.
>
> 2) A proposal from Mark Wahl. Summarized as follows:
>
> A) Publish LCUP as a Proposed Standard after successful
>    passage of WG Last Call.
>
> B) Conclude LDUP once LCUP spec is published as an RFC.
>
> C) Convert all WG documents to individual I-D contributions
>    and allow editors to work out consensus (or not) outside
>    of the context of a WG.
>
> I have spoke with a number of folks who have opinions about
> the pros and cons of either approach.
>
> Please post your views to the list on the pros and cons of
> these approaches and indicate which way you are leaning at
> this time.
>
> Also please feel free to post your observations about any
> inaccuracies in the summaries of the proposals above.
>
> Chris Apple - Principal Architect
>
> DSI Consulting, Inc.
>
> mailto:capple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> http://www.dsi-consulting.com