Re: [dtn-interest] DTNRG docs that are....done?

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi All,

So taking into account the comments received and
based on chatting with DTN folks at the IETF meeting,
we hope that we can proceed with all of the documents
if the various changes needed are done in time.

There are of course nits and some less minor issues
with some of them, so we defined the following new
statuses just for this:

- "yes, if" - there are only minor issues and
the authors are in the process of handling those

- "no, until" - there are less trivial issues
where we want to check the next version again
before going ahead

Authors also need to add a bit of boilerplate
to the *abstract* if its not already there. (Yes,
I know putting it there is silly.) The text to
use is below.

"yes, if" draft-irtf-dtnrg-sdnv
"yes, if" draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-previous-hop-block
"yes, if" draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-metadata-block
"no, until" draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-retrans-block
"yes, if" draft-irtf-dtnrg-cbhe
"yes, if" draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-security
"no, until" draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet

Regards,
Stephen.

Boilerplate:

  "This document is a product of the Delay Tolerant Networking Research
   Group and has been reviewed by that group.  No objections to its
   publication as an RFC were raised."



Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> First, thanks for the feedback sent so far, do keep
> it coming.
> 
> Here's how Kevin and I propose to process the feedback
> from this "yet another last call":
> 
> Based on the feedback sent to the list, we'll decide
> (probably on Monday) which are ready to go forward.
> 
> We may decide that draft-foo should go ahead only
> if the authors address comment-bar. But, we won't be
> requiring unanimous "yes" opinions, essentially this
> will be a judgment call, based on the comments to
> the list, and not just a simple accounting exercise.
> 
> So if you've opinions to express, please mail them
> to the list now.
> 
> We will start the IRSG review process for the drafts
> that are ready on November 20. So, authors, please ensure
> that any changes that are needed are done before then.
> You can submit new drafts from Monday.
> 
> If, based on the list feedback, we decide that some of
> these drafts aren't quite ready yet, the authors of
> those still have a chance to take the list feedback into
> account and if they turn enough (decided by the chairs)
> "no" opinions into "yes" opinions by Nov 20 then we'll
> include those drafts in the batch submitted for IRSG
> review.
> 
> Remaining drafts (if any) won't go forward at this time.
> The next time we'll do this will most likely be early
> in the new year, if more documents look like they're
> ready by then.
> 
> And, of course, we'll be in "chair" mode while doing
> this, so our own personal comments only count as much
> those from anyone else that contributes to DTNRG.
> 
> Regards,
> Stephen & Kevin.
> 
> 
> 
> [e-mail] wrote:
>> ...or at least I hope they're done. (And my apologies
>> for being so slow getting this done.)
>>
>> I think we should finally declare victory on these before
>> we meet in Hiroshima and shoot them over to the IRSG for
>> review.
>>
>> But we need some messages to the list saying "yes" for that
>> to happen.
>>
>> Please respond to this mail saying yes/no/dunno for each
>> of these before Friday November 6th.
>>
>> [yes|no|dunno] draft-irtf-dtnrg-sdnv
>> [yes|no|dunno] draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-previous-hop-block
>> [yes|no|dunno] draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-metadata-block
>> [yes|no|dunno] draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-retrans-block
>> [yes|no|dunno] draft-irtf-dtnrg-cbhe
>> [yes|no|dunno] draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-security
>> [yes|no|dunno] draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet
>>
>> - "yes" means "I think this is ready to be an RFC" and
>>   can be accompanied by editorial or minor comments/suggestions
>> - "no" requires substantive accompanying comments, i.e. you
>>   need to say why not, or we'll treat that as "dunno"
>> - dunno means you've not read it or don't care
>>
>> I'm giving them a read over now, and will send my own
>> response when that's done.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Stephen.
>>
>> PS: I'm going to post a draft agenda for our session (on
>> Friday Nov 13th) in a hour or two, so yet another chance
>> to ask for a slot, if you've not already.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________