Subject: [lemonade] Last Call: 'Server To Server Notification Protocol Requirements' to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:01:40 -0500

The IESG has received a request from the Enhancements to Internet email to 
support diverse service environments WG to consider the following document:

- 'Server To Server Notification Protocol Requirements '
   <draft-ietf-lemonade-notify-s2s-00.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2005-02-17.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-lemonade-notify-s2s-00.txt

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

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:09:46 -0800 (PST)

>   <draft-ietf-lemonade-notify-s2s-00.txt> as a Proposed Standard

I'm sorry that I dropped the ball on this document in the WG.  I obviously 
missed the WGLC.

Without commenting on the quality of the document, is this document really 
suitable for standards track?  It doesn't actually specify any protocol, 
but instead just states requirements for an as-yet nonexistant protocol.

Hence, if it's published as an RFC, I'd think that it would be Informative 
or perhaps a BCP.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:50:54 -0800 (PST)

> but instead just states requirements for an as-yet nonexistant protocol.

FWIW, I had the same reaction. There's no protocol here, only a set of
requirements for one, as the title of the document implies. IMO this
is suitable for publication as informational, not proposed or BCP.

				Ned

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 18:45:49 -0800

On 2/3/05 at 9:09 AM -0800, Mark Crispin wrote:

>I'm sorry that I dropped the ball on this document in the WG.  I 
>obviously missed the WGLC.

You are not to be faulted here, Mark: Seeing the WGLC (sent 21 Sep 
2004) would not have helped you in this case because it did not 
include the intended status of the document.

>Without commenting on the quality of the document, is this document 
>really suitable for standards track?  It doesn't actually specify 
>any protocol, but instead just states requirements for an as-yet 
>nonexistant protocol.
>
>Hence, if it's published as an RFC, I'd think that it would be 
>Informative or perhaps a BCP.

I agree fully that this document is inappropriate for the standards 
track, and I do not think it is appropriate as a BCP either. This 
document should be informational.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102