Re: APEX documents on hold

I (and I assume the rest of the APEX WG) appreciate this followup. I=20
did want to get some clarification on the text (at least one of which=20
I think was simply an editing error):

On 7/17/02 at 8:59 AM +0900, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m wrote:

>Today, after discussing with the APEX chair and Graham (author of releva=
nt
>document(s)), IESG decided:
>
>  - To request at the RFC-Editor that the 3 APEX base specifications:
>      draft-ietf-apex-core-06.txt
>      draft-ietf-apex-access-08.txt
>      draft-ietf-apex-party-04.txt

I assume you meant to say "To request at the RFC-Editor that the 3=20
base specifications *be progressed to Proposed Standard*, as was=20
previously intended."

>  - To keep the hold on the IM part of APEX and continue to discuss
>    with authors, wg chairs etc on how to do the referencing
>      draft-ietf-apex-presence-06.txt
>[...]
>   (b) The hold requested is just because we think we all need
>       to think some more on an issue which was not rised during
>       last call or during IESG discussions, "we" as in IETF, not
>       just IESG

Does the IESG agree with the following?

- This is a variance in the normal procedure (in that this document=20
was already approved by the IETF, including other working groups, at=20
last call and the IESG in issuing the protocol action).

- The APEX working group did what it was supposed to do and that this=20
hold does not indicate any problem with the procedures we followed.

- This was caused by the failure of folks (from the IESG and the IETF=20
community, including other working groups) to point this out in a=20
timely fashion this during the last call period.

- That the IESG has not yet decided what to do, and that is the=20
purpose for the hold. That is, the held document may be passed on for=20
publication without change, or the document may be further held until=20
publication of CPIM or a CPIM mapping document, but that this=20
decision has yet been made.

With regard to the last item, assuming the IESG agrees that this is=20
true, can the IESG give us a time frame for when this initial=20
decision will be made? Personally, I would be much more comfortable=20
with this state of limbo for that document if I knew that the=20
decision was to be made in short finite time.

pr
--=20
Pete Resnick <mailto:[email protected]>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102