Re: RFC 2877 follow-on coming...

On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 14:17, Jeffrey Stevens wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> We would like to inform you that the iSeries Telnet team members have prepared a
> revised draft of the TN5250E RFC 2877 that includes some clarifications to
> existing features and publishes some features that have been incoporated since
> the time the IETF ratified RFC 2877.  In order to document these as well as some
> features incorporated in the upcoming V5R2 release, we need to provide a
> follow-on RFC to 2877.
>
> What's the best way to proceed?
>
> We would also like to introduce new team member Fran Orzel, which rounds out our
> team as follows:
>
>       Thomas E. Murphy, Jr.   [email protected]
>       Francine M. Orzel       [email protected]
>       Paul F. Rieth           [email protected]
>       Jeffrey S. Stevens      [email protected]
>
> We have some new function in the area of printers, Enterprise Identity Mapping
> (EIM), password encryption and Confirmation Records that we think will be of
> interest to TN5250E client vendors.
>
> With the Working Group winding down, the first question is how best to proceed?
>

I think I sent a note on a related question that covers this. I've
copied at the bottom of this note, as well.

To be clear: if you've got an opinion, please voice. The default action
is to do nothing.

cheers,
/msb

The following options exist:

    -- do nothing. Not palatable, but always the default action wrt to
these matters.

    -- keep the WG alive and push the new draft through by updating the
charter. I believe you'll have to find another chair; I'm past my use-by
date :-).

     -- submit the draft as an individual submission. This is perfectly
acceptable for Informational RFCs, and I hear tell that the occasional
Standards Track submission gets through this way. I certainly know that
this is the way of least resistance from a IESG point-of-view. The IESG
is more concerned with relevance and quality of the document (as seen by
amount/quality of review & discussion on the working-groups' aliases).
They are also more concerned with consensus than with whether the
document originated inside/outside a particular WG; WG's are "just"
mechanisms to regulate the madness.