Subject: RE: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-sermersheim-ldap-csn-00.txt

From: "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 01:56:11 -0500

When you revise it please *do* submit it as a WG document.
 
I see no need to go through the process for just a name change
of the existing version as long as the intent is clear.
 
The e-mail trail is there but a little unclear with respect to the intended
track of the document.
 
My preference and rationale are:
 
Lack of significant discussion on the topic causes me to say "lets make the
CSN
document Informational" because the document from which it was derived
is intended to be Informational. And if discussion points us towards another
track prior to or during WG Last Call on the CSN spec - we'll change it at
an
appropriate time.
 
I note that the intended status of the schema document is taken from the
WG Charter and not the document itself. The document itself incorrectly
indicates an Experimental track (which is something that we can address
during its WG Last Call).
 
Chris.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:10 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-sermersheim-ldap-csn-00.txt

>>> "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]> 12/23/03 8:45:23 AM >>>

>The Editors of all LDUP WG documents with a dependency on the content
>included in this draft should produce revisions of their documents within
the
>same time frame so that we can proceed with WG Last Calls on them.
>
>Higher priority documents would of course be those to be included in the
>First Grouping identified in the meeting minutes posted to the WG Mailing
List.
>
>I note that this is exactly the kind of dependency/risk I did not want to
introduce
>by allowing an additional dependency on a non-WG document. Per previous
>direction from John and myself, the specification you have published was
>supposed to have been published as an LDUP WG document regardless
>of its more general applicability.
>
>However, In the interest of moving things forward,  I will not pursue the
issue
>of converting the document to an LDUP WG deliverable.
 
It's no big deal, I can re-submit it as a WG document if you'd like. I think
we waffled around so much regarding the WG status and whether it should be
Standards-Track, Informational, or Experimental, that I mis-remembered the
outcome. There's no email-trail so I just submitted as I thought we had
decided - I should have double checked.
 
Let me know if you want me to submit as a WG doc, and what the intended
category should be. The old one will just vaproize on its own.
 
Jim

---

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:10:18 -0700

>included in this draft should produce revisions of their documents within the
>First Grouping identified in the meeting minutes posted to the WG Mailing List.
>
>I note that this is exactly the kind of dependency/risk I did not want to introduce
>However, In the interest of moving things forward,  I will not pursue the issue
 
It's no big deal, I can re-submit it as a WG document if you'd like. I think we waffled around so much regarding the WG status and whether it should be Standards-Track, Informational, or Experimental, that I mis-remembered the outcome. There's no email-trail so I just submitted as I thought we had decided * I should have double checked.
 
Let me know if you want me to submit as a WG doc, and what the intended category should be. The old one will just vaproize on its own.
 
Jim