Proposals for Concluding LDUP
"Chris Apple" <[email protected]> Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:56:40 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Organization | DSI-Consulting, Inc. |
| Message-ID | <000201c2a220$f8ef4a00$0400a8c0@D7ST2111> |
As mentioned in the proposed WG meeting minutes, there are currently two proposals on the table for concluding LDUP: 1) A proposal from the co-chairs. Summarized as follows: A) Publish LCUP spec as Proposed Standard after successful passage of a WG Last Call. B) Publish remaining WG documents as either Informational or Experimental after resolving gross inconsistencies and explicitly identifying areas where the WG was unable to achieve consensus in those documents. C) Reference X.500 BAC in the General Usage Profile as well as the X.500 Administrative Model (perhaps from the drafts by Steven L. and Kurt Z., perhaps directly from the X.500 Recommendations themselves) D) Reference X.500 BAC and Administrative Model in other WG documents as needed. E) Documents should enter WG Last Call on or before the July 2003 IETF Meeting. F) Conclude LDUP when last document is published as an RFC. 2) A proposal from Mark Wahl. Summarized as follows: A) Publish LCUP as a Proposed Standard after successful passage of WG Last Call. B) Conclude LDUP once LCUP spec is published as an RFC. C) Convert all WG documents to individual I-D contributions and allow editors to work out consensus (or not) outside of the context of a WG. I have spoke with a number of folks who have opinions about the pros and cons of either approach. Please post your views to the list on the pros and cons of these approaches and indicate which way you are leaning at this time. Also please feel free to post your observations about any inaccuracies in the summaries of the proposals above. Chris Apple - Principal Architect DSI Consulting, Inc. mailto:[email protected] http://www.dsi-consulting.com