[EAI] Status of the four (or five) documents
John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com> Sat, 09 March 2013 23:25 UTC
Return-Path: <klensin@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78DBD21F8795 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 15:25:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.668
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R0xwMgdf-DZR for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 15:24:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACA2421F8734 for <ima@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 15:24:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <klensin@jck.com>) id 1UET8G-0001Uo-Fu; Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:24:52 -0500
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:24:47 -0500
From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
To: eai-dt@alvestrand.no, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
Message-ID: <14CE4BEB43E4931FA22E0DBD@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Joseph Yee <jyee@ca.afilias.info>, ima@ietf.org
Subject: [EAI] Status of the four (or five) documents
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 23:25:00 -0000
Hi. I'm copying the full EAI list on this because I'm sure people are wondering what black hole the documents dropped into. The very high-level summary is that the RFC Editor had serious problems getting several of them into shape that would be appropriate for publication. That led to some intense reviews, which turned up problems with terminology and related issues. Some of those had to be resolved because they created ambiguities or confusion, others just were worth cleaning up as we were doing other work. I want to stress that the RFC Editor has been very helpful about all of this and has put in a lot of extra effort, both of which I appreciate and believe the rest of the WG should too. Insofar as there is a problem, it is our fault for being too optimistic about what they could and would fix without a lot of input from us. I think we are all learning for the future. A note from the outgoing IETF Chair that essentially suggested that documents that had taken this long and been this much work (especially for the RFC Editor) should be returned to the WG so that they could be revised, reviewed by the WG and put through Last Call again further complicated matters and led to some additional delays. We assumed the WG wouldn't be happy with the several more months of delay that would imply, but see below. At this stage, I think the current status is as follows (if I have any of this wrong, please someone correct me). Because of crosswise normative references and the like, these documents are part of a "cluster", which means that none of them will actually be published until all of them are. (1) Barry's 5322 revision, aka RFC-to-be-6854, and simpledowngrade, aka RFC-to-be-6858, are done, signed off, and ready to publish (unless some brand-new issue shows up). (2) The IMAP spec, aka RFC-to-be-6855, has been signed off on by everyone but Shuo Shen. We are waiting on him to finish a review and tell the RFC Editor to go ahead. (3) There are still some minor issues, including a question about IPR and a bit of confusion with the RFC Editor about what changes have been approved or not, associated with the POP spec (RFC-to-be 6856). Once that is done, we will need signoff from _all_ of the authors. (4) I believe that popimap-downgrade (RFC-to-be 6857) is about ready to go modulo fixing one small definition, but I'm not sure that Kazunori Fujiwara or the RFC Editor agree (there have been some loose ends and confusion about them). With luck, we will get that straightened out tomorrow or Monday. If we still have outstanding issues left by circa Monday afternoon, I intend to ask for a f2f meeting with RFC Editor staff and as many authors as I can round up. Anyone who particularly wants to participate should like me know, especially if you will be remote. Finally, in the interest of openness and in case anyone wants to review drafts, I'm going to give away a secret to the WG that isn't really one (it is just not widely publicized). AUTH48 working drafts are at <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/>. The numbers are above -- if you want to look at a particular draft, find the number, scroll down that page until you find the latest version number associated with it and click. Files named rfcNNNN-diff.html are diffs from the I-D; other diff files are likely to be less helpful to those who haven't been involved in the AUTH48 process. The only thing I ask is that people be very careful with these drafts: they look like RFCs and have RFC numbers, but are not the RFCs, so circulating them into the wild could cause a lot of confusion. I am not expecting anyone in the WG outside the relevant authors to dig out the documents and study them, but want to give you the opportunity. If you do look at one or more of them and have comments, send them to the authors with copies to Joseph and myself (and to Pete if you think things have gone seriously astray). Silence will be construed as either consent or indifference, which are basically equivalent at this stage in the process. I look forward to seeing some of you tomorrow or during the week. best, john
- [EAI] Status of the four (or five) documents John C Klensin
- Re: [EAI] Status of the four (or five) documents John C Klensin