From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Nov 25 2003 - 15:23:05 CST
This is your (frustrated) Editor speaking.
We have not heard from our Chairs for months.
The original idea was that we were to have a new charter. That was 9
moinths ago, and we have had no discussions on it, and we have not even
been presented with a draft.
We had a more-or-less agreed plan of work, which I have been trying to
follow. But we ran into a problem over "Re: " in Subject-Headers and
asked our Chair for guidance. We were told that we could NOT put it to a
vote, but neither were we given any other resolution.
So I reported that I was stuck and proceeded to get on
with work on the USEAGE document. This resulted in a draft
which I put up on the Landfield site a few weeks ago
(<http://www.landfield.com/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-useage--1.03.txt>
and <ditto.unpaged>). Now that the latest IETF meeting is over and the
moratorium on new drafts is over, I tried to put that up as an official
draft draft-ietf-usefor-useage-00.txt so that it could be an official
topic of discussion.
But the Drafts Editor requires approval from the Chair for a new level
00 draft. So our Chairs have been asked for that approval, and the
result is zilch. They haven't said yes; they haven't said no; they just
haven't said.
So what was I supposed to Do?
Well, what I have done is to stick my neck out and make some arbitrary
decisions on the outstanding issues in Usefor, in the hope that either
they will stick, or else it will force some action to get them decided
properly. I have also tidied up various other things in the Usefor
document (various gaps left over from the removal of all the Useage
stuff), and I have put out a new draft (see separate message for the
details).
So what happens next?
Well, ideally, our Chairs reappear and coordinate our activities (and
allowing Useage to be published properly as a first step), but in the
absence of that, here is what I propose:
1. I need to hear discussion of the Useage Draft. No matter that it is
not yet an internet draft - the text is there in www.landfield.com, so
let us hear your opinions.
2. Ditto the new Usefor draft, particularly the recent changes (as
described in the separate message). Let us see if there is consensus for
them.
3. As to the way forward, the plan proposed by our Chairs envisages
splitting Usefor into two further parts; one on the format of articles
and the other on the protocols. We have never actually discussed the
merits of doing this, and personally I am dubious about it. So I would
like to hear this issue discussed.
AFAICS, the format document would consist of sections 1 through 6 and
maybe 7, and the protocol document would consist of section 8 (+ maybe
7). That makes a rather uneven split, but I cannot see any significant
amount of text from the earlier sections that belongs in protocol
- a few sentences maybe. By the time you have added boilerplate,
introduction and padding to the protocol document, the sum of the two
will be significantly larger that what we currently have.
So please may we hear the case for splitting? I am quite willing to do
it, if that is what the WG wants, but please, if you are proposing a
split, have a good read through the present text and tell me just what text
to move (well, not everytthing, but some illustrative examples).
4. After that, we either split, or we don't. If we split, then I will do
as you ask. And if we don't, then AFAIAC we are ready for internal last
call, unless anyone here has a good reason otherwise.
5. The next issue is whether we are aiming to put Usefor (split or not)
to the IETF at the same time as Useage. There are a few references to
USEAGE from within Usefor which would have to be weeded out if USEFOR
is to be published first, so there is some benefit doing them together.
Which means that the next major job that needs doing is to hammer Useage
into shape. Well, if we splt Usefor, then I would do the detailed work
on that first, though that would not preclude discussing Useage at a
broader level. at the same time.
6. The main issues to be discussed in Useage, apart from agreeing (or
not) with the basic approach I have taken are
a) What to do about GNKSA, and do you want me to invite the GNKSA
author to join us? Indeed, my next job is to prepare a discussion
paper listing the points at which GNKSA differs from the current
Useage.
b) What to do about RFC 1855?
7. All that is still within the plan agreed by our Chairs (in
particular, the experimental protocol for I18N is not to be tackled
yet). It is also within the scope of our present charter (which is
actually so broad that almost anything is allowed :-( ). But, that being
so, I see absolutely no point in trying to rewrite our charter at the
present moment. We should have done it 9 months ago if we were going to
do it. So long as we stick to a plan such as outlined above, our present
charter will see us through. When all that has gone to the IETF, then by
all means let us recharter for what remains.
So, in short, I call for 3 threads of discussion:
A. Continuation of this thread om the way forward, including split/not split.
B. Discussion on Usefor (please follow up to my other message).
C. Discussion on Useage (please start a new thread with USEAGE
prominently in its Subject).
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5