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

I think I saw him reply to something else so:

ping?

-MSK

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:28 AM Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
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 <br@brianrosen.net> 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 <superuser@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> So can we finish planned-changes?
>>
>> -MSK
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 3:07 PM Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> 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 <guycaron911@gmail.com> 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 <dwightpurtle@gmail.com>
>>> *Envoyé le :*12 janvier 2023 00:33
>>> *À :* Guy Caron <guycaron911@gmail.com>
>>> *Cc :* ecrit@ietf.org
>>> *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 <guycaron911@gmail.com>
>>> 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
>>> Ecrit@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ecrit mailing list
>>> Ecrit@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ecrit mailing list
>>> Ecrit@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>
>