Re: [salud] Finishing up

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 16 July 2014 23:14 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 805801A0393 for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nuegaNRmDrC7 for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:228]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F1C1A010A for <salud@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.72]) by qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id TAyE1o0021ZXKqc5FBErNt; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 23:14:51 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id TBEr1o00B3ZTu2S3hBErgg; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 23:14:51 +0000
Message-ID: <53C7076B.3070906@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 19:14:51 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: salud@ietf.org
References: <201407161835.s6GIZMlT021612@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <CAL02cgTBoaEJ8QBEp52eA-N-TcRBm3awunzY_XXnH-V0D+t-WA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgTBoaEJ8QBEp52eA-N-TcRBm3awunzY_XXnH-V0D+t-WA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1405552491; bh=TL71TYE0LWITiQrYqISd4mBnTDfkzhpRnhOo0z1yuf8=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=TTpu4Rd2UCzUcqzPv3S1+y722I0DoirGlTdKNiIWBf0PSS0b5YA119FMBrPj/Me6d UcmMu8iKSYNHWVrVyJYTgmIAQkJRiHFe1MMyeCV8US6PTZIqjs4BqFS+WcgLEnDslt iSefOK+7jSOHu271sjM4qhxeVd6t54U8cb5F4ksNklhBiXZoPwy0YMh2RqiTVrSoJB e8NGPpyNiQHo2gCvjV/H5U7qUehVprmQLgltT0TLEg8rQQePEMxPds9PjNLJ6NILyV qhQZq9Rrdb7z3ln9wM30omrUOwnv6LQ4/yCaEmVYi5XEsc3OQLoFXMAuB+7gzPgIUn zmoD1uQQn/NHg==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/salud/YWQDwn7250pFb_Sm1fY7OTo33L8
Subject: Re: [salud] Finishing up
X-BeenThere: salud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Sip ALerting for User Devices working group discussion list <salud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud/>
List-Post: <mailto:salud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 23:14:53 -0000

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 <worley@ariadne.com
> <mailto:worley@ariadne.com>> 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
> salud@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud
>