Subject: RE: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Standard

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:09:39 -0400

When work is done in the context of an IETF working group, then
it is feasible to challenge the venue at the formation of the working
group.  Since "SOAP in BEEP" was not done in the context of an
IETF working group, I believe challenges to the venue are appropriate.
I believe that is one of the risks inherent in developing
an IETF standard outside of the context of an IETF working group.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Subject: Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Standard

the time for challenging the venue for this work was when it was 
initiated, not now.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 11:33:15 -0700

Note the date of the beep working group archive entry:

>[BXXPwg] new version of soap over beep published
>Marshall T. Rose <[email-masked]>
>Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:17:54 -0700

2.5 months is plenty of time for problems to be considered.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:13:22 -0700 (PDT)

Dave,
	This was put forward specifically as work reviewed
in the IETF but not the product of an IETF working group.
Is that in error?  Should this have been put forward as
the work of the beep working group?
			regards,
				Ted Hardie

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:27:46 -0700

>the work of the beep working group?

Ted, the observation was about behavior, not formal mandate.  It was 
presented to a relevant working group.

d/

----------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:03:42 -0700 (PDT)

Dave,
	I don't think you quite got what I was trying to ask, so I'm
trying again:

  Given an ID process in which anyone can say anything to
  anyone, how can someone track the "venue" choice of an ID
  which has not been formally accepted as a work item by any
  working group?

	There are processes for dealing with establishing the
appropriate venue for work items, and there are known coordination
points established among ADs, working group chairs, and non-IETF
standards bodies.  Those haven't been at work when individual
submissions are brought into the standards track and we have other
processes for individual submissions as a result.  One of the
questions which is certainly appropriate at that time is: "did this
document get the review and input from the appropriate communities"?
That gets to the venue question pretty quickly.
	I can certainly understand why you feel that the presentation
of this work to the BEEP community constituted a reasonable effort at
coordination.  But you must remember cases where a working group's
decision not to adopt an ID as a work item reflected a conviction that
it wasn't worth the working group's efforts to fix it, rather than a
conviction that it was good enough on its own.
	I believe that this point in the process *is* a reasonable
time to ask those questions of any draft that didn't emerge from
the working group process.  I am fine with the answer "here's where
it was reviewed and what we thought", but I don't think we should
cut off the question.
	Aside from the specific issues, I'm frankly happy to see this
level of response to a last call; I'm much more worried about the ones
which pass through without some level of attention.
				best regards,
					Ted Hardie