Re: Precondition for WG Last Call of the First Document Grouping

I recommend:
  LDAP Replication I-Ds be subject to IETF Last Call before being
  considered by the IESG.

  LDAP Replication I-Ds be progressed (IETF Last Called, IESG
  consideration) as a set.

The former because LDAP Replication may have impact upon LDAP implementations
which are not participating in the LDAP Replication experiment.  The latter
because the individual I-Ds have a great deal of interdependencies.

On the CSN discussion, I am in favor of splitting it out so that it can be
more easily referenced by other specifications.  (On the technical side, I
concur that CSN should be defined in ASN.1 terms with LDAP-specific string
encodings.)  However, I am not yet convinced that standard track would be
appropriate for this CSN specification, especially given previous consensus
(as reflected in the current charter) to pursue LDAP Replication off the
standards track.  

Kurt

At 10:45 AM 11/14/2003, Chris Apple wrote:
>During the LDUP WG Meeting earlier this week, there was a process point
>raised by Ted Hardie. We will be asking this question for each of the WG
>Last Call document groupings as we approach the time to initiate them.
>
>We need to consider if we should or don't need to request that various
>drafts intended for publication as Informational and Experimental RFCs
>go through an IETF Last Call. Such documents are not required to pass an
>IETF Last Call prior to IESG approval for publication as RFCs.
>
>At this time, your Co-Chairs need a response on that issue from WG
>Members relative to the following two documents:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-model-09.txt
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-08.txt
>
>They are both intended for publication as Informational RFCs. 
>
>Please indicate whether you think an IETF Last Call should or should not
>be requested for each of the documents listed above.
>
>In the interest of keeping things moving along as quickly as possible,
>please respond with your input on this matter no later than 1700 US ET
>on Friday, November 21, 2003.
>
>We will not initiate the WG Last Call for the First Grouping of
>documents until this window of time has elapsed so that WG Last Call
>participants will know that there will or will not be a
>post-WG-Last-Call chance to comment on the document prior to the WG Last
>Call commencing.
>
>See the CSN-Note at the end of this e-mail for an explanation of how
>this question relates to the recent suggestion to pull the CSN content
>out of draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-08.txt as a separate standards-track
>document.
>
>If we receive no input or insufficient input on which to base an
>interpretation of consensus, upon conclusion of the WG Last Call for
>these two documents, our decision as Co-Chairs will be to recommend
>publication of the drafts as Informational RFCs *without* requesting an
>IETF Last Call. Otherwise, we'll request an action consistent with
>consensus on this topic.
>
>Chris Apple
>DSI Consulting, Inc.
>
>[email protected]
>[email protected]
>
>609-828-2987
>
>CSN-Note:
>
>There is some possibility that we will be pulling out the CSN content
>from draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-08.txt as a standards-track document to be
>included in the same WG Last Call. Since the CSN draft would be intended
>as a standards-track document, an IETF Last Call would be required, but
>only for the CSN draft. The CSN draft status will not change the
>intended publication track for draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-08.txt (actually
>would be -09.txt if the CSN draft happens), and thus has no material
>impact the question being asked in this e-mail.