Re: Plan to finish draft-ietf-usefor-usepro

[Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I've consulted with the chairs, and we feel that the current version of
> draft-ietf-usefor-usepro (-09) is a definite improvement on RFC1036.
> Since there has been no activity for at least six months, and the WGLC
> was in 2006, I plan to put this document forward for IETF Last Call.  I
> will do so on or after Aug 29.  If the WG manages to close any more
> issues and issue another version, that's even better, but I will request
> publication for -09 if that's the latest version issued by Aug 29.

I will release at least one newer draft that includes the explanation of
how history works, since I believe that section is uncontroversial.  I
will try to do that soon.

The remaining controversy is over Injection-Date handling.  I think the WG
reached a consensus that the language in -09 is not a good idea.  I have
one proposed replacement text and Charles has another.  (Please someone
else correct me if I got this wrong; it's been a long time.  All I know
for sure is that I have a replacement text.)  I think either of those
would be an improvement over the current text, which is muddled and not
particularly clear.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>