Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Moving forward: draft-carlberg-ets-*.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 17:25:36 EST

In a message dated 11/8/2002 8:27:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> understood.  i believe one of the things Ran was alluding to was
> whether the approach taken by us is acceptable to the group and
> should be migrated to official working group documents.  this is
> with the understanding that comments and clarifications will be made
> to the next version of the document.
> 

It sounds like the approach is okay, but it is necesary to see -01 before one 
can say for sure about moving it to WG status.

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 18:08:36 +0000

> It sounds like the approach is okay, but it is necesary to see -01 before
> one can say for sure about moving it to WG status. 

the co-chairs will correct me if I'm wrong, but the document(s) do
not have to be fully baked to be working group items.  there are
specific items that need to be addressed, but there have not been
disagreements with the structure of the draft nor of the approach
taken.  

moving forward is not a final call, just a progression of its status.

-ken

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

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 13:21:34 -0500 (EST)

> the co-chairs will correct me if I'm wrong, 

:-)

> but the document(s) do

a doc needs to address a specific topic in the WG charter and be
generally seen as being in the same quadrent as WG consensus so
that, with aditional work, it can be made to articulate WG consensus

Scott

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 14:14:27 -0500

On Saturday, Nov 9, 2002, at 13:21 America/Montreal, Scott Bradner 
> that, with aditional work, it can be made to articulate WG consensus

Those 2 documents are at least as much "in the same quadrant as WG
consensus" as the draft-ietf-ieprep-* documents are.

If you have specific issues with the documents that make you think
they cannot, with additional work, be made to articulate WG consensus,
please share so we can edit accordingly.

Ran