Re: Review of draft-yu-enumservice-sms-smpp WG ITEM?

Hi Richard, folks,
  I'm neutral either way on trying to push this through or to
"do it properly" using rfc3761bis and the guide. You did say before
that we should "eat our own dog food" and use the new process, but
I understand the commercial imperative to get something out soon.

Also, choosing a track for James' SMS update depends on whether or not
the IESG will be enthusiastic to process the SMS update with the new
process (designed to put less load on them) just around the corner
- care to guess?


However, I'd hate to see 3761bis and the guide held up too long either.

IMHO, the Guide is pretty close to complete.
The only real question is whether or not we need to do a refreshed
"X- guide" soon. Either way, I think the "main" guide is ready to roll.

3761bis should be complete, and will have one more refresh at some point
to reflect the WGLC comments Alfred Hoenes gave us (which were not  
really
editorial, IIUC, so that could even be in Authors'48).

The authors on these docs have worked really hard to get them together.
I can't see any reason why they should be delayed in the WG.

Given the IESG comments on Experiences, do we need some clarification  
from
Jon on whether or not he thinks that these documents will be  
acceptable to
the IESG?
[3761bis has a chunk of text from Experiences, so I'm no longer sure  
quite
what's OK and what isn't]

all the best,
   Lawrence

On 28 Apr 2008, at 17:32, Richard Shockey wrote:
> I'd hate to see a perfectly simple registration ID held up too long if
> Registration/3761bis this were going to be dragged out past Dublin.
>
> We do seem to have some trouble getting people to review and  
> comment on RFC
> 3761 bis etc.. the two are somewhat tied together.