Re: Precondition for WG Last Call of the First Document Grouping
"Jim Sermersheim" <[email protected]> Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:08:27 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=__PartC89646FB.0__= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just to clarify, the CSN I-D I would offer would only describe the syntax, and not any attributes. Attributes (and their semantics) would still have to be defined in other documents (like Infomod) Jim >>> Richard V Huber <[email protected]> 11/19/03 10:54:07 PM >>> I have no problem with the idea of a separate CSN draft if that's the way the WG wants to go. But if we go that way, we should start with the next version of Infomod rather than -08. There are some minor wording changes in Section 7.1 of Infomod (I assume that is the section that would become part of a CSN draft) that should be included. The changes reflect the fact that replicaSubentries are replaced by replica objects (which are not subentries) in the upcoming draft. As for other drafts, I think the Profiles draft could be progressed without waiting for most of the other drafts. It mainly discusses issues that should consider when administering/using replicated directories. Rick Huber : From: "Chris Apple" < [email protected] > : To: < [email protected] > : Subject: Precondition for WG Last Call of the First Document Grouping : Sender: [email protected] : Precedence: bulk : List-Archive: < http://www.imc.org/ietf-ldup/mail-archive/ > : List-ID: <ietf-ldup.imc.org> : List-Unsubscribe: < mailto:[email protected]?body=unsubscribe > : : : 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. : : : : : --=__PartC89646FB.0__= Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4934.1600" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Microsoft Sans Serif"> <DIV>Just to clarify, the CSN I-D I would offer would only describe the syntax, and not any attributes. Attributes (and their semantics) would still have to be defined in other documents (like Infomod)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jim<BR><BR>>>> Richard V Huber <[email protected]> 11/19/03 10:54:07 PM >>><BR><BR>I have no problem with the idea of a separate CSN draft if that's the<BR>way the WG wants to go. But if we go that way, we should start with<BR>the next version of Infomod rather than -08. There are some minor<BR>wording changes in Section 7.1 of Infomod (I assume that is the section<BR>that would become part of a CSN draft) that should be included. The<BR>changes reflect the fact that replicaSubentries are replaced by replica<BR>objects (which are not subentries) in the upcoming draft.<BR><BR>As for other drafts, I think the Profiles draft could be progressed<BR>without waiting for most of the other drafts. It mainly discusses<BR>issues that should consider when administering/using replicated<BR>directories.<BR><BR>Rick Huber<BR><BR>: From: "Chris Apple" <<U> <A href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A></U> ><BR>: To: <<U> <A! href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A></U> ><BR>: Subject: Precondition for WG Last Call of the First Document Grouping<BR>: Sender: <U><A href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A></U> <BR>: Precedence: bulk<BR>: List-Archive: <<U> <A href="http://www.imc.org/ietf-ldup/mail-archive/">http://www.imc.org/ietf-ldup/mail-archive/</A></U> ><BR>: List-ID: <ietf-ldup.imc.org><BR>: List-Unsubscribe: <<U> <A href="mailto:[email protected]?body=unsubscribe">mailto:[email protected]?body=unsubscribe</A></U> ><BR>: <BR>: <BR>: During the LDUP WG Meeting earlier this week, there was a process point<BR>: raised by Ted Hardie. We will be asking this question for each of the WG<BR>: Last Call document groupings as we approach the time to initiate them.<BR>: <BR>: We need to consider if we should or don't need to request that various<BR>: drafts intended for publication as Informational and Experimental R! FCs<BR>: go through an IETF Last Call. Such documents are not ! required to pass an<BR>: IETF Last Call prior to IESG approval for publication as RFCs.<BR>: <BR>: At this time, your Co-Chairs need a response on that issue from WG<BR>: Members relative to the following two documents:<BR>: <BR>: <U><A href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-model-09.txt">http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-model-09.txt</A></U> <BR>: <BR>: <U><A href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-08.txt">http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-08.txt</A></U> <BR>: <BR>: They are both intended for publication as Informational RFCs. <BR>: <BR>: Please indicate whether you think an IETF Last Call should or should not<BR>: be requested for each of the documents listed above.<BR>: <BR>: In the interest of keeping things moving along as quickly as possible,<BR>: please respond with your input on this matter no later than 1700 US ET<BR>: on Friday, November 21, 2003.<BR>: <BR>: We will not initiate the WG! Last Call for the First Grouping of<BR>: documents until this window of time has elapsed so that WG Last Call<BR>: participants will know that there will or will not be a<BR>: post-WG-Last-Call chance to comment on the document prior to the WG Last<BR>: Call commencing.<BR>: <BR>: See the CSN-Note at the end of this e-mail for an explanation of how<BR>: this question relates to the recent suggestion to pull the CSN content<BR>: out of draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-08.txt as a separate standards-track<BR>: document.<BR>: <BR>: If we receive no input or insufficient input on which to base an<BR>: interpretation of consensus, upon conclusion of the WG Last Call for<BR>: these two documents, our decision as Co-Chairs will be to recommend<BR>: publication of the drafts as Informational RFCs *without* requesting an<BR>: IETF Last Call. Otherwise, we'll request an action consistent with<BR>: consensus on this topic.<BR>: <BR>: Chris Apple<BR>: DSI Consulting, Inc.<BR>: <BR>: <U><A href! ="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]<! /A></U> <BR>: <U><A href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A></U> <BR>: <BR>: 609-828-2987<BR>: <BR>: CSN-Note:<BR>: <BR>: There is some possibility that we will be pulling out the CSN content<BR>: from draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-08.txt as a standards-track document to be<BR>: included in the same WG Last Call. Since the CSN draft would be intended<BR>: as a standards-track document, an IETF Last Call would be required, but<BR>: only for the CSN draft. The CSN draft status will not change the<BR>: intended publication track for draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-08.txt (actually<BR>: would be -09.txt if the CSN draft happens), and thus has no material<BR>: impact the question being asked in this e-mail. <BR>: <BR>: <BR>: <BR>: <BR>: <BR></DIV></BODY></HTML> --=__PartC89646FB.0__=--