[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP
Chris:
As for the LDUP mode (architecture) draft, I could work on it to bring it to
a consistent state before closing this. I know Ed will not be able to
continue on this. Some other LDUP participants have offered to help me
close this draft.
Thanks,
Uppili.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Huber" <rvh@xxxxxxx>
To: <capple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ietf-ldup@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP
> 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
>
>