Subject: [spfbis] Follow-up after IETF 85

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:47:45 -0500

Dear colleagues,

At IETF 85, the WG met and rapidly came to what appeared to your
chairs as consensus on next steps.  They are these:

    1.  Perform a diff between the most recent WG document (08) and
    RFC 4408.  This allows us to document precisely any differences
    between the current state of work and the starting point of the
    WG.  This is a step we undertake for defensive purposes only, in
    case later people ask us about the steps in the reorganization.
    We ask the editor, Scott Kitterman, to perform this and send the
    output to the mailing list (for the archives).

    2.  Scott, in collaboration with Murray Kucherawy (who proposed
    the original reorganization), undertakes the reorganization and
    creates the next WG document.  This reorganization should have
    _no_ text changes in it apart from moving text around.  A note
    should be added to that version of the draft to indicate that it
    only reorganizes the text of 08.  This will form the WG draft 09.
    This version must be uploaded as 09 in order to provide the
    necessary chain in the tracking tools, so that we can demonstrate
    that the reorganization did not change the substance of 08.

    3.  Scott updates the 09 immediately with any pending substantive
    changes he has lined up.  This forms the WG draft 10, and is the
    basis for any further work.

There was extremely little support for splitting the draft or in any
way taking on another document right now.  Given that and the WG
charter, the chairs believe that there is no reason to split the
draft, and we do not intend to follow that course.  Since there was no
active decision at IETF 85 to split the draft, there is no
confirmation of this decision needed here (we're continuing with our
existing path); but in the spirit of confirming meeting decisions on
the list, if you have strong arguments in favour of splitting the
draft you need to make them right now.  While you're doing it, you
need to demonstrate that others are willing to work on such a split
and to demonstrate that there is someone with the required skill,
time, and interest in working on a split.  This demonstration needs to
include support from the editor of the current WG draft, since he will
inevitably need to do work as well.

This message confirms our impression of what transpired in the WG
meeting.  We ask the editor to proceed on the above lines.

Best regards,

SM/AS, as chairs.

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]