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

[Guy Caron <[e-mail]>]

Can what I suggested 7 months ago (see my note on 31 Jan below) be reconsidered so that we can unlock similar-location, which has been sitting in the RFC Editor queue with a MISSREF for a year and a half now?

 

Thank you.

 

Guy Caron

 

 

De : Murray S. Kucherawy
Envoyé le :12 août 2023 22:59
À : Randall Gellens
Cc : [e-mail]
Objet :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 <[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
Envoyé le :12 janvier 2023 00:33
À : Guy Caron
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" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

 

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit