Re: [salud] Finishing up

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 7/16/14 3:41 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> 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.

Is it possible that, with changes of this magnitude, others will have 
new comments?

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Thanks again,
> --Richard
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Dale R. Worley <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> salud mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud
>