Re: [salud] Finishing up

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
>>
>>
>