Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP

Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
 >
> With respect to LCUP, as I noted at IETF#55, we're not at the end
> of the LCUP engineering process but somewhere in the middle.

I think the middle is a large area but we are closer to the end of the 
middle than the beginning of the middle ;-)

 > We still got some significant issues to reach closure on.  A WG may
> aide in seeing LCUP through.  I am a bit concerned that the LCUP
> effort is seems also to struggling a bit, but I believe there is a
> reasonable level of interest (both within our community as well
> as our consumers) in LCUP.  I think the key to this being successful
> as a WG effort is narrowing the WG's focus to LCUP standardization
> and having our chairs, with the help from the ADs, keep this
> effort on a very short leash.
> 
> Hence, I support option 2 with a couple of caveats.
>   I) LCUP be the only WG deliverable
>     Ia) resolve major outstanding issues by IETF#56
>     Ib) progress documents by IETF#57
>   II) allow review of LDUP I-D produced by individuals
>      (as long as these reviews does not slow LCUP progress)

I don't think the LCUP effort is "struggling" much if at all, but I 
agree that it will be helpful to keep LDUP alive long enough to complete 
the LCUP work.

-Mark Smith
  Netscape