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

From: "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:45:49 -0500

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-masked]
[email-masked]

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.

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:20:15 -0800

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

---

From: "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:28:23 -0500

Jim S: Please note the request for your input on CSN status near the bottom
of this e-mail.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:20 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Precondition for WG Last Call of the First Document Grouping

I recommend:

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.

CHRIS> Points duly noted. I do not personally see any harm in either
putting Informational and Experimental documents through an IETF Last Call
or not doing so. John and I would need to see others indicate that they
wish to proceed this way to make the request of our ADs.

CHRIS> Personally, I am conflicted about expressing support for waiting
until all I-Ds are ready for IETF Last Call. I recognize the interdependency
issues, but also believe that the way the co-chairs proposed that the
documents to be staged through the publication process limits various
risks involved in not waiting for a balloon-style IETF Last Call for all
documents. As a Co-Chair, I view this staging as consistent with the WG
Charter,
despite the slip in dates. I suppose that the IESG could decide to hold the
LDUP
documents until they are all ready for IETF Last Call. But that is a
decision they would have to make regardless of any request that John and I
might relay to them. And Since Ted is watching the LDUP list, I'm sure he'll
take your input into account when deciding what he should recommend to the
IESG. As usual, John and I would need to see others indicate that they wish
to proceed this way. Otherwise, we'll be sticking with our original intent
of
sending documents to our Ads as they are ready for IESG Consideration.

Kurt

CHRIS> The rationale I recall from prior discussion about the CSN split-out
is that the CSN concept has a broader applicability than LDUP. That seems to
me to be sufficient justification for pursuing a standards-track publication
path. I view this issue as one that is separable from the general concept of
LDUP being an Experimental concept/protocol. LDUP needs CSN to work even in
an experimental way. I certainly agree that this is not a sufficient
justification
alone for a standards-track path. But...perhaps Jim S. can shed some light
on the specific reasons he had for suggesting standards track for CSN? And
if others could chime in as well that would help us sort this out.

Chris Apple - Principal Architect

DSI Consulting, Inc.

mailto:[email-masked]

http://www.dsi-consulting.com