Subject: [salud] Finishing up

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:35:22 -0400

[as chair of Salud]

I am currently planning how to bring the draft to a rapid conclusion.
There are a number of steps to be followed, and by IETF procedures,
they need to be followed in order, and that will take some time.

However, I believe that with proper planning we can advance quickly to
the point where we know that the current Salud draft will be accepted,
even though finishing the procedures will take a few weeks further.

The purpose of this message is to ask our AD, Richard Barnes, if he
considers this a reasonable way to proceed, and to notify all
concerned that this is the proposed plan and request feedback on any
needed modifications.

First,

1. Establish a -13 draft, so we have a definitive revision of the
   draft.  I believe that the authors are in consensus about a -13
   draft.

After that, we can proceed in parallel with,

2. Obtain approval of Christer Holmberg, who is the Document Shepherd
   and outside technical reviewer.

3. Obtain approval of the working group via a WGLC.  We need to allow
   for at least two weeks for WGLC.  In my opinion, this time should
   be disjoint of the Toronto IETF meeting, which means that it spans
   Monday 28 July to Monday 11 August.  Given the recent history of
   the working group and the fact that all recently active members
   have been active authors of the draft, I do not expect any
   objections to be raised.

4. Informally verify that the changes in the -13 draft satisfy the
   IESG objections that have design import or are in some way
   controversial:

   - replacing the domain name-based <provider> value with a
     first-com, first-served registry (Alissa Cooper, Barry Leiba,
     Brian Haberman, Pete Resnick, Stephen Farrell)

   - using a uniform policy of Specification Required (which includes
     Expert Review) for defining additional standard URNs, including
     providing detailed guidelines for the expert review (Barry Leiba,
     Brian Haberman, Pete Resnick)

   - revision of section 13 and its requirement that a UA "MUST
     produce a reasonable rending" (Gen-Art review, Jari Arkko)

   - additional security considerations and reorganizing their
     presentation, including that a "source" indication will almost
     certainly only be accepted when it is provided by a proxy acting
     on behalf of the recipient UA (section 16, 8.2.2) (Secdir review,
     Alissa Cooper, Kathleen Moriarty, Stephen Farrell, Ted Lemon)

After 1, 2, and 4 are finished, I believe that we can safely predict
the draft will proceed to an RFC.

After the second stage, we can proceed with,

5. Formally file responses to the IESG's discuss points.

6. Get the IESG's approval.

After that there is,

7. Editorial consultation with the RFC Editor.

Dale

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:45:17 -0400

Dale,

This sounds like a good plan, in that it is the best that can be done 
under the circumstances. It is unfortunately complicated and drawn out, 
but unavoidably so.

One thing - while I normally wouldn't recommend it, *maybe* we could run 
the WGLC in parallel with the meeting next week since we don't expect 
any surprises there. But I think maybe Richard should make that call.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 7/16/14 2:35 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> salud mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud
>

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:41:56 -0400

Hey Dale,

Thanks for keeping this moving.  Glad it sounds like you've got some
resolutions to IESG issues.

I think it's OK to run the WGLC in parallel with the meeting next week,
especially if you extend it to run a little bit before and/or after the
meeting.

You don't need to be quite so formal about steps 4, 5, and 6.  You really
just need to talk to the individual ADs holding DISCUSSes, and once they
clear, I can approve the document.

Thanks again,
--Richard

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 19:14:51 -0400

On 7/16/14 3:41 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> You don't need to be quite so formal about steps 4, 5, and 6.  You
> really just need to talk to the individual ADs holding DISCUSSes, and
> once they clear, I can approve the document.

Is it possible that, with changes of this magnitude, others will have 
new comments?

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Thanks again,
> --Richard
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Dale R. Worley <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     [as chair of Salud]
>

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:18:22 -0400

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Is it possible that, with changes of this magnitude, others will have new
> comments?
>

It's possible, and the IESG should be CC'ed on the DISCUSS resolution
threads, as is normal.  But the onus is on them to update their ballots.

I will also review the changes once they're in the document, and decide if
they look significant enough to merit a new ballot.

Thanks,
--Richard

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:01:38 -0400

[as chair of Salud]

> From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
> 

Yes, we believe that the IESG will be satisfied with the revisions.

> especially if you extend it to run a little bit before and/or after the

OK, I will adjust the schedule for that.  Certainly the new WGLC will
run beyond the meeting, because RFC 2026 section 6.1 specifies a
minimum duration of two weeks.

> clear, I can approve the document.

OK.  I was unfamiliar with the process.  I assumed that the new draft
had to be re-reviewed by the IESG.  But you tell me that we only need
to resolve the DISCUSSes with each AD individually.  That is
essentially step 4, and we do not need to do steps 5 and 6, those are
replaced with notifying you that the DISCUSSes have been cleared.

Dale

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:34:26 -0400

> they look significant enough to merit a new ballot.

The diff from -12 to -13 is now available at:

http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-13

Dale