Subject: RE: Proposals for Concluding LDUP

From: "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:30:03 -0500

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-masked]

http://www.dsi-consulting.com

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Chris Apple
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:57 PM
To: [email-masked]
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-masked]

http://www.dsi-consulting.com

---

From: "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:59:06 -0500

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.

DSI Consulting, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Chris Apple
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 1:30 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: John Strassner
Subject: RE: Proposals for Concluding LDUP

With respect to ToDo-2:

DSI Consulting, Inc.

-----Original Message-----

DSI Consulting, Inc.

---

From: [email-masked] (Rich Megginson)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:22:19 -0700

>the WG Meeting is relevant and meaningful.
I will submit LCUP-04 by the deadline.