Subject: document management

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:06:57 -0500

I have a question to float to the group that is not privacy related.

Currently we have a set of documents sitting in the IESG review 
process, which is why we are covering the privacy issue rather 
intensively right now.  Procedurally, if and when we address this, 
the documents could continue onward to a Proposed Standard RFC set.

We have been having difficulty getting consensus on the privacy issue.

But that is not the only issue out there.  There is the ROID issue 
waiting along with some others that we really ought to solve before 
we can leave the PS orbit.  (I.e., if we hit PS soon, we'll have to 
do it again anyway to handle some of the potential changes.)

I'm proposing that we withdraw the current document set from the IESG 
review cycle, address all of the IESG comments anyway and then move 
on to addressing the other latent issues and resubmit for PS as soon 
as we can.  Perhaps in February.

Comments?
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 10:48:37 -0500

> do it again anyway to handle some of the potential changes.)

Would you, or the document editor(s), do me the kindness of restating the
open issues?

TiA,
Eric

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:55:37 -0500

Some background reading:

http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-12/msg00099.html

http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-12/msg00092.html

In the last, item #5 lists the three issues of which I'm aware.

The minutes of the last face-2-face:

http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-12/msg00086.html

The open issues are mentioned in there...

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:21:42 -0500

> http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-12/msg00099.html

I see Jaap's note 2) "Other transports".

Noting the lack of interest I'll modify the conditional boilerplate in
draft-brunner-epp-smtp-00.txt that anticipated adoption of the memo by
a working group, track dependencies in the set of WG memos, and continue
off-list.

> http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-12/msg00092.html

No comment required.

> In the last, item #5 lists the three issues of which I'm aware.

2. Come to a final understanding of UDP and EPP.

I'm still not convinced by PAF, or Scott Bradner, but its the opinion of
the other implementors, if any, that is controlling.

3. Clarify the adoption of P3P concepts.

I seem to have missed both the problem statement and the solution.

5. An SMTP mapping is all but dead in the water.

See above.

Eric