Subject: [Ltru] Wrapping up the second WG last calls on the registry and initial registry drafts

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:49:03 -0700

Hi -

I've finally managed to get through all the mail from the ltru WG mailing
list, and have added the new issues to the issue tracker at https://rt.psg.com/
(user and password "ietf").  Please review the lists to make sure I didn't
miss anything that you believe is important enough to merit giving an
issue number.

At this time, there are two open issues we need to close before closing
the WG last call on these documents: #1098 (on the registry i-d), and
#1099 (on the initial registry i-d).  I would hope that we can polish these
off very quickly (in a day or so); I think we're past the point of diminishing
returns.

When we've reached a rough consensus on what to do about these two,
we'll instruct the editors to issue updated drafts.  Then Martin and I will
start the process of shepherding these through the IESG, using the
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt
procedures as directed by our AD.

Randy, ltru co-chair

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:03:58 +0200

On 07:49 13/08/2005, Randy Presuhn said:
>  Then Martin and I will start the process of shepherding these through 
> the IESG, using the

Interesting. FYI:

1) I have a pending proposition to the authors of this draft to make every 
Sheperding WG Chair work copied to the WG, including the separate mails 
reporting on formal oppositions, as a LC not subject to consensus, for 
transparency and editing assistance (this is the WG sales pitch).

2) I have also proposed two additional questions (the Charter which is the 
Contact with the IESG/IAB is not considered, COI and chapel and status quo 
effects are only partly addressed):

     - has the WG initially well understood its Charter? Has it adhered to 
it? Has it extended it in some manner? Has the WG used a working road map 
of some sort?  Does the presented document fulfills the corresponding 
part(s) of the WG Charter? Has the WG identified relations with the Charter 
of other WGs? In such a case have you discussed the matter with the 
concerned ADs and WG Chairs?

    - do you feel comfortable that this document is free from competition 
between technical chapels and represents a genuine, inclusive and open 
effort to best support all the needs of the state of the art protocols, 
applications, procedures, of the current or of the documented common 
practices, and of the disclosed R&D projects?

jfc