Re: draft mhsds minutes from Seattle IETF

[Steve Kille <[e-mail]>]

Allan,

A few comments on the draft minutes:


1) Minimum profile.   The action seems unclear.   I like the idea that
this document is handled by implementors, to clearly reflect the
minimum useful functionality.  I'd propose an action on KEJ and/or JPO
to produce an updated document, and an action on SEK to make the old
text available to the new authors.


2) Terminology.  As this specification modifies and ISO spec, I try to
follow the ISO rules.  Any deviations should be taken as an editorial
fix.  The summary is "may" means optional, "shall" means mandatory,
"should", "might" and "must" shall not be used.

3) Obsolete OIDs.   I think that there is a general issue here.  I
think that someone should volunteer to maintain an informational
document containing lists of now obsolete OIDs.  This is broader than
mhs-ds.  

4) Detailed review of the documents.  I was surprised that there were
no proposed changes in the minutes or even discussion of issues.    I
would particularly have expected a report on the discussion relating
to the changed model in the X.400/822 mapping support.   


5) Standards actions.  The agreed standards actions were omitted from
the minutes.   You need to add the agreed disposition for each of the
documents reviewed and which were:
   - submit immediatedely for RFC
   - submit for RFC following editorial update
   - submit for RFC following editorial update and WG review
In each case, the agreed proposed RFC type should be noted.


Steve