I will submit LCUP-04 by the deadline.To date, I have heard from one editor of a single document about the status of their I-D.
Please respond directly to myself and John Strassner with an acknowledgement of this e-mail and an indication of your intent with respect to meeting the March 3rd publishing deadline for I-Ds. Its fine to CC: the LDUP list also, but John and I need to know of your intent so that discussion during the WG Meeting is relevant and meaningful.
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: Friday, February 21, 2003 1:30 PM To: ietf-ldup@xxxxxxx Cc: John Strassner Subject: RE: Proposals for Concluding LDUP
Consensus has been established for Proposal Number 1 below. This interpretation of consensus is based on a review of the WG mailing list and consideration of the views posted by myself on behalf of WG members who chose to comment on the issue verbally rather than post to the list.
This means that the WG has a few ToDos:
1) Establish consensus on a WG Charter Revision covering this change in direction and submit to Apps ADs for consideration.
2) Revise all WG I-Ds that are currently expired.
3) Ensure adequate coverage of documents by editors (some folks have said they can no longer justify the effort required of a document editor; we have had alternate volunteers for most of these documents).
John and I will initiate ToDo-1 by preparing a WG Charter revision proposal and post to the WG mailing List prior to the start of the IETF Meeting in San Francisco. We can discuss it during the WG session as well as on the mailing list.
With respect to ToDo-2:
I expect all document editors to revise or resubmit for publication their currently expired I-Ds BEFORE the March 3rd deadline. Please do this even if there are no technical or otherwise substantive changes to the drafts.
If you are unable or unwilling to do that please notify John and I so that we're aware of it. If you are one of the editors who volunteered to take over editing a document for someone else who had to move on, please make arrangements with the former editor to obtain their most recent version. Often Google will help you find a captured version of even an expired I-D as a last resort. If you volunteered, you know who you are.
ToDo-3 will have to be sorted out by John and I once we have seen the results of ToDo-2.
Chris Apple and John Strassner
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
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature