Re: [salud] Finishing up

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Thu, 17 July 2014 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 19C801A0181 for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.723
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.723 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 YA14TmRSQz9a for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-f48.google.com (mail-oi0-f48.google.com [209.85.218.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F04F1A0046 for <salud@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-f48.google.com with SMTP id h136so1212433oig.35 for <salud@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=pMBQl5yzrioBBwKsu+y88uO5eCmrI5zQODFUachPUQA=; b=mkL8mRJwZxdZ2zqcUiY00cKDr/Fv5IK5Cy4tpA4ec3kM3xcP8tEQfcAmXhMlFxacI7 UiYZI2HYakX+huKIXwZk3K1pO9+lqhk/4A0NYpV7GrPw+P8tFSHMIzbogE9kBZbnvHOI etxH5n0Z5OeO63a/h1cA57LoSTqezhBWPHtZ9Q1/1tpvTQfQ7v0jA4vjstFZMnwty6ni RZkOCxJHtrDB1UYCh5ThP0BMWv4cy8VeVBVH7VY7fBLNEOdSPSQxc0U0XEbqtRqcQE0Q YrSn0CskkFXQn7b3VElN2Pei7S4sjFwgp1/r1Ji4SFhCPgSV/qLbiPjkDBho4ps2Fcq6 OYeA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl7ObNVm9XuZCuBLrarDoaWyMeXMAjkwIrztd/WTMl7inhFuK2rocihMu4mpvp+kNixD59x
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.95.68 with SMTP id di4mr5168780obb.87.1405610302395; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.106.202 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53C7076B.3070906@alum.mit.edu>
References: <201407161835.s6GIZMlT021612@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <CAL02cgTBoaEJ8QBEp52eA-N-TcRBm3awunzY_XXnH-V0D+t-WA@mail.gmail.com> <53C7076B.3070906@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:18:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgS=4YBY+cekHS8GbELROrYyJDfjrrEs4b3kNQRcyjnhGQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0153821cc46fe104fe6526c8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/salud/xHcU7o-tYd8_P3iMBlbe7hVmv-c
Cc: salud@ietf.org
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: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:18:25 -0000

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>; wrote:

> 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?
>

It's possible, and the IESG should be CC'ed on the DISCUSS resolution
threads, as is normal.  But the onus is on them to update their ballots.

I will also review the changes once they're in the document, and decide if
they look significant enough to merit a new ballot.

Thanks,
--Richard



>
>         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
>>
>>
>