Re: Fixing documents and proposed agenda for Minneapolis

At 16:15 12/10/03 -0400, Mark Day wrote:
>The IESG has responded to our various drafts and so it makes sense to
>discuss how we should proceed.

(Was this really the first message to this list for nearly two months??)

Regarding draft-ietf-impp-cpim-msgfmt-08.txt:

I've responded to Ted Hardie with proposed changes in response to some of 
Bill Fenner's comments.  I believe these are all editorial in nature.  I'm 
waiting to hear if the proposed changes are sufficient.  (I'm resisting 
that we must slavishly follow RFC2234's approach of strings in ABNF being 
case insensitive.)

Regarding Margaret Wasserman's comment:
[[
The TOC in this document doesn't have page numbers, so I am not
sure why it has been included. Would the RFC editor fix
something like this?
]]

It is my assumption that the RFC editor will fix things like this.  I shall 
assume there is no impediment to progress here, unless advised otherwise.

(I think a ToC without page numbers is still useful.)

#g
--

At 16:15 12/10/03 -0400, Mark Day wrote:
>The IESG has responded to our various drafts and so it makes sense to
>discuss how we should proceed.  It is really hard to figure out in the ID
>tracker where the comments are (I had to ask our AD for help), so here's the
>link:
>https://www1.ietf.org/IESG/EVALUATIONS/draft-ietf-impp-im.bal
>
>I would appreciate it if each document editor and any other interested
>parties could review the comments received, and discuss any relevant issues
>on the mailing list.
>
>To clean up our organizational/process impasse, I'd also suggest that we
>take up discussion of the "de facto charter" on the mailing list and in
>Minneapolis.
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-day-atkins-impp-defacto-00.txt
>
>I think that we should approach this discussion with the idea that we have
>to answer these two different questions:
>
>1. What is the right role (if any) for the IMPP WG to fill?
>
>2. If there is a role for it to fill, is that role substantially similar to
>what is in the de facto charter draft or is it something quite different?
>[If it's quite different, what is it?]
>
>Thanks,
>
>--Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]

------------
Graham Klyne
[email protected]




  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]