Re: [Ecrit] Objet : Status on draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-19

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

Brian and I talked a few days ago (on the 9th) about him revving the 
draft.

--Randall

On 12 Aug 2023, at 19:59, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> I think I saw him reply to something else so:
>
> ping?
>
> -MSK
>
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:28 AM Randall Gellens 
> <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> We're waiting on Brian, who is on vacation now.
>>
>> --Randall
>>
>> On 23 Jul 2023, at 9:54, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>
>> ping?
>>
>> (If this got published, I can't find a record of it in email)
>>
>> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 3:25 PM Brian Rosen <[e-mail]> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, hope to have “final” draft in the ne t 2-3 days
>>>
>>> On May 15, 2023, at 9:54 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy 
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> So can we finish planned-changes?
>>>
>>> -MSK
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 3:07 PM Brian Rosen <[e-mail]> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Making any changes would require pulling the document back to the 
>>>> work
>>>> group, editing, and restarting work group last call, IETF last 
>>>> call, and
>>>> the IESG review/telecast process.  Then it would go to the back of 
>>>> the RFC
>>>> Editor queue.
>>>>
>>>> You would be better off beating me up to finish planned-changes
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 2023, at 1:33 PM, Guy Caron <[e-mail]> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to me that similar-location
>>>> leverages the extension point, which was defined by RFC 5222. None 
>>>> of the
>>>> new elements defined in planned-changes are needed to support
>>>> similar-location.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only linkage I can see is in section 6 of planned-changes that
>>>> presents an alternative in XML schema to the RFC 5222 Relax NG one.
>>>> However, there is nothing in that section that states normatively 
>>>> that it
>>>> replaces the RFC 5222 Relax NG schema.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, to unlock similar-location, would it be possible to remove the
>>>> reference to planned-changes altogether?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, the XML schema could be moved from planned-changes 
>>>> to
>>>> similar-location and let planned-changes refer to the 
>>>> similar-location RFC,
>>>> similar-location being much more advanced that planned-changes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Guy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *De :* Dwight Purtle <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Envoyé le :*12 janvier 2023 00:33
>>>> *À :* Guy Caron <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Cc :* [e-mail]
>>>> *Objet :*Re: [Ecrit] Status on draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-19
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ECRIT-Similar-Location contains a reference to 
>>>> LoST-Planned-Changes,
>>>> which is not yet complete.  Thus the MISSREF.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dwight Purtle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 11:00 AM Guy Caron <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What’s the status on this draft?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was an announcement on 7 March 2022 that the IESG approved 
>>>> the
>>>> draft as a Proposed Standard, yet the draft seems stuck in the REF 
>>>> Editor
>>>> queue with a MISSREF and that, for 309 days.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Guy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ecrit mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ecrit mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ecrit mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Ecrit mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>>
>>