Re: [lamps] IESG review of draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-20

["Brockhaus, Hendrik" <[e-mail]>]

Roman

Many thanks for your strong support of this document especially during IESG approval procedure.
The good thing is, that all DISCUSS ballots on the technical content could be resolved before or during the telechat. The remaining issue concerns the style of the draft. This was already discussed during IETF113 and will need some WG decisions, I guess.

> Von: Spasm <[e-mail]> Im Auftrag von Roman Danyliw
> 
> The ADs are sympathetic to blocking the work, so we defined the following steps
> to find a way to advance the document.  No guarantees, but these steps would
> provide structure for the ADs to revisit their ballots (and get us closer to the
> needed 10 positions).  These steps included:
> 
> ** Returning the document back for IESG Review on the June 30 telechat
> (reason: certain ADs balloted ABSTAINed and didn't review all of the details of
> the document; with the benefit of this additional WG background described
> above, returning this document gives them more time for review)

Thank you for adding it to the agenda.

> 
> ** Plan and define a formal milestone in the datatracker that set expectations
> on when a CMP bis document would be published (reason: certain ADs would
> feel reassured that the WG has a plan to provide a more readable update
> document via bis and approval of this current document would be a stop-gap
> measure)

@Russ, will you initiate the process on adding an RFC4210bis and RFC6712bis document to the WG agenda?

> 
> ** Add text into the current draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates which explains why
> this patch style was used and alluding to WG plan for a full bis document

I purpose adding the following text to the Introduction of the draft:

   The authors acknowledge that the style of the document is hard to read
   because the original RFCs must be read along with this document to get
   the complete content.  The working group decided to use this approach
   in order to keep the changes to RFC 4210 [RFC4210] and RFC 6712 [RFC6712]
   to the required minimum.  This was meant to speed up the editorial process
   and to minimize the effort spent on reviewing the whole text of the original
   documents.

   As a next step, the LAMPS Working Group will consider providing RFC4210bis
   and RFC6712bis documents in order to offer the reader self-contained
   updated documents for CMP. This activity may also promote CMP to Internet
   Standard as discussed during IETF113.

> 
> ** Updating the shepherd write-up for the implementations of this document

@Russ, can you do this based on the update proposed above?

- Hendrik