Re: [salud] Finishing up

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Hey Dale,

Thanks for keeping this moving.  Glad it sounds like you've got some
resolutions to IESG issues.

I think it's OK to run the WGLC in parallel with the meeting next week,
especially if you extend it to run a little bit before and/or after the
meeting.

You don't need to be quite so formal about steps 4, 5, and 6.  You really
just need to talk to the individual ADs holding DISCUSSes, and once they
clear, I can approve the document.

Thanks again,
--Richard



On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Dale R. Worley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> [as chair of Salud]
>
> I am currently planning how to bring the draft to a rapid conclusion.
> There are a number of steps to be followed, and by IETF procedures,
> they need to be followed in order, and that will take some time.
>
> However, I believe that with proper planning we can advance quickly to
> the point where we know that the current Salud draft will be accepted,
> even though finishing the procedures will take a few weeks further.
>
> The purpose of this message is to ask our AD, Richard Barnes, if he
> considers this a reasonable way to proceed, and to notify all
> concerned that this is the proposed plan and request feedback on any
> needed modifications.
>
> First,
>
> 1. Establish a -13 draft, so we have a definitive revision of the
>    draft.  I believe that the authors are in consensus about a -13
>    draft.
>
> After that, we can proceed in parallel with,
>
> 2. Obtain approval of Christer Holmberg, who is the Document Shepherd
>    and outside technical reviewer.
>
> 3. Obtain approval of the working group via a WGLC.  We need to allow
>    for at least two weeks for WGLC.  In my opinion, this time should
>    be disjoint of the Toronto IETF meeting, which means that it spans
>    Monday 28 July to Monday 11 August.  Given the recent history of
>    the working group and the fact that all recently active members
>    have been active authors of the draft, I do not expect any
>    objections to be raised.
>
> 4. Informally verify that the changes in the -13 draft satisfy the
>    IESG objections that have design import or are in some way
>    controversial:
>
>    - replacing the domain name-based <provider> value with a
>      first-com, first-served registry (Alissa Cooper, Barry Leiba,
>      Brian Haberman, Pete Resnick, Stephen Farrell)
>
>    - using a uniform policy of Specification Required (which includes
>      Expert Review) for defining additional standard URNs, including
>      providing detailed guidelines for the expert review (Barry Leiba,
>      Brian Haberman, Pete Resnick)
>
>    - revision of section 13 and its requirement that a UA "MUST
>      produce a reasonable rending" (Gen-Art review, Jari Arkko)
>
>    - additional security considerations and reorganizing their
>      presentation, including that a "source" indication will almost
>      certainly only be accepted when it is provided by a proxy acting
>      on behalf of the recipient UA (section 16, 8.2.2) (Secdir review,
>      Alissa Cooper, Kathleen Moriarty, Stephen Farrell, Ted Lemon)
>
> After 1, 2, and 4 are finished, I believe that we can safely predict
> the draft will proceed to an RFC.
>
> After the second stage, we can proceed with,
>
> 5. Formally file responses to the IESG's discuss points.
>
> 6. Get the IESG's approval.
>
> After that there is,
>
> 7. Editorial consultation with the RFC Editor.
>
> Dale
>