Re: Re: APEX documents on hold

--On 2002-07-17 09.44 +0900 Pete Resnick <[email protected]> wrote:

> I (and I assume the rest of the APEX WG) appreciate this followup.

I am happy to see that my clearification helps, and doesn't make the
room(s) foggier.

By the way, you all should know that Pete and myself spent large amount o=
f
time yesterday, and we will continue to talk. So, for those of you in ape=
x
wg which have issues, if you don't find me or any other IESG member, use
your wg chair (sorry Pete).

> I did
> want to get some clarification on the text (at least one of which I thi=
nk
> was simply an editing error):

Understood.

> On 7/17/02 at 8:59 AM +0900, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m wrote:
>=20
>> Today, after discussing with the APEX chair and Graham (author of
>> relevant document(s)), IESG decided:
>>=20
>>  - 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
>=20
> I assume you meant to say "To request at the RFC-Editor that the 3 base
> specifications *be progressed to Proposed Standard*, as was previously
> intended."

Yes. I sent the following to the RFC editor:

> After looking at the documents, we would like to release the hold we
> requested yesterday on the following documents:
>=20
>      draft-ietf-apex-core-06.txt
>      draft-ietf-apex-access-08.txt
>      draft-ietf-apex-party-04.txt


>>  - 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
>=20
> Does the IESG agree with the following?
>=20
> - This is a variance in the normal procedure (in that this document was
> already approved by the IETF, including other working groups, at last
> call and the IESG in issuing the protocol action).
>=20
> - The APEX working group did what it was supposed to do and that this
> hold does not indicate any problem with the procedures we followed.
>=20
> - This was caused by the failure of folks (from the IESG and the IETF
> community, including other working groups) to point this out in a timel=
y
> fashion this during the last call period.
>=20
> - That the IESG has not yet decided what to do, and that is the purpose
> for the hold. That is, the held document may be passed on for publicati=
on
> without change, or the document may be further held until publication o=
f
> CPIM or a CPIM mapping document, but that this decision has yet been ma=
de.

Yes. Absolutely. We (IESG) want correctness here, and IF (note the IF) a
reference is needed, it should be there. As the documents are not
published, we really really want to verify one last time this referencing.

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

I think we all should discuss this the next days. I expect that we at the
end of this week (in 2-4 days) know much much more. For example, yesterda=
y
morning, IESG was not 100% sure that the APEX documents (the 4) could be
separated to 3 could be released. We knew this morning.

So, I would be surprised if we (the IETF community) do not have an
agreement end of this week.

But, you asked for a timeframe: Let me assure you that IESG will discuss
this on the first telechat after this IETF meeting which is next thursday=
,
the 25th of July. I really hope enough data has been collected, including
of course input from APEX people.

So, to continue this data collection, my questions are:

  1 Should the CPIM/APEX document reference CIPM?
  2 Should the IM reference CPIM/APEX?
  3 Should the CPIM/APEX reference IM?
  4 Can the IM document be published before CPIM/APEX?
  5 Can the CPIM/APEX be published before CPIM?
  6 What is really blocking CPIM?

I.e. what is the risk by publishing the CPIM/APEX mapping too early, and
what implications does it have to the IM document (can that be published
"too early")?

With CPIM/APEX I mean the CPIM/APEX mapping spec, and with IM I talk abou=
t
draft-ietf-apex-presence-06.txt.

   paf