Re: URGENT RE: Proposals for Concluding LDUP

Chris Apple wrote:

>To date, I have heard from one editor of a single document about the
>status of their I-D.
>
>Please respond directly to myself and John Strassner with an acknowledgement
>of this e-mail and an indication of your intent with respect to meeting
>the March 3rd publishing deadline for I-Ds. Its fine to CC: the LDUP list
>also, but John and I need to know of your intent so that discussion during
>the WG Meeting is relevant and meaningful.
>
I will submit LCUP-04 by the deadline.

>
>Chris Apple - Principal Architect
>
>DSI Consulting, Inc.
>
>mailto:[email protected]
>
>http://www.dsi-consulting.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>Behalf Of Chris Apple
>Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 1:30 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Cc: John Strassner
>Subject: RE: Proposals for Concluding LDUP
>
>
>
>Consensus has been established for Proposal Number 1 below. This
>interpretation of consensus is based on a review of the WG mailing
>list and consideration of the views posted by myself on behalf of
>WG members who chose to comment on the issue verbally rather than
>post to the list.
>
>This means that the WG has a few ToDos:
>
>1) Establish consensus on a WG Charter Revision covering this change
>   in direction and submit to Apps ADs for consideration.
>
>2) Revise all WG I-Ds that are currently expired.
>
>3) Ensure adequate coverage of documents by editors (some folks have
>   said they can no longer justify the effort required of a document
>   editor; we have had alternate volunteers for most of these documents).
>
>John and I will initiate ToDo-1 by preparing a WG Charter revision
>proposal and post to the WG mailing List prior to the start of the
>IETF Meeting in San Francisco. We can discuss it during the WG session
>as well as on the mailing list.
>
>With respect to ToDo-2:
>
>I expect all document editors to revise or resubmit for publication
>their currently expired I-Ds BEFORE the March 3rd deadline. Please
>do this even if there are no technical or otherwise substantive changes
>to the drafts.
>
>If you are unable or unwilling to do that please notify John and I so
>that we're aware of it. If you are one of the editors who volunteered
>to take over editing a document for someone else who had to move on,
>please make arrangements with the former editor to obtain their most
>recent version. Often Google will help you find a captured version of
>even an expired I-D as a last resort. If you volunteered, you know who
>you are.
>
>ToDo-3 will have to be sorted out by John and I once we have seen
>the results of ToDo-2.
>
>Chris Apple and John Strassner
>
>
>
>
>
>Chris Apple - Principal Architect
>
>DSI Consulting, Inc.
>
>mailto:[email protected]
>
>http://www.dsi-consulting.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>Behalf Of Chris Apple
>Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:57 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Proposals for Concluding LDUP
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>  
>