Subject: Last Call on USEFOR - procedures and reminder of deadline

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:54:01 +0200

As you probably have seen, Lisa was true to her promise and Last-Called 
usefor-12 on August 30, with a Last Call expiry date of September 12 (6 
days from now).

If you have comments you wish to record as Last Call comments, please 
follow the usual procedure:

- For any substantial issue, send a message with ISSUE: in the subject 
to the USEFOR mailing list, detailing ONE concern (or a group of closely 
related concerns).
Special since this is IETF Last Call: If you think the issue warrants 
IETF-wide attention, CC the IETF list ([email-masked]).
- We won't issue any new versions until after the Last Call has ended. 
Russ can check in new changes into his repository on a continuous basis, 
but there shouldn't be a -13 before September 12 at the earliest, and 
probably later (giving the WG Chairs some time to look through any 
issues raised).
- The WG chairs will record any ISSUEs that they don't dismiss out of 
hand in the issue tracker (eventually), and prepare a summary after the 
close of the Last Call.

I would particularly like to ask Charles to go over his August 28 long 
commentary on -11 and check what issues remain in -12, and if any of 
them need to be raised above the editorial level.

I'm hoping that we'll close this WG soon.

                          Harald

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:27:52 GMT

>usefor-12 on August 30, with a Last Call expiry date of September 12 (6 

That seems a very short interval. I have been on hboliday for 10 days, and
the Last Call seems to have openened and closed within that time.

>them need to be raised above the editorial level.

None of the issues I raised was fixed in -12 (bar one). I think it best if
Russ looks carefully through it and indicates which is is happy to accept
(possibly reworded) as editorial corrections.

The only items which probably need discussion here are:

1. The MUST NOT in 
  "the    Path header field MUST NOT contain a "POSTED" <diag-keyword>;"
in Proto-articles (3.4.1) (since no interoperability arises, and there
might be diagnostic benefit in allowing it to remain in there).

2. The wording in 5.4 (Supersedes header) which is clearly wrong as it
stands, but I am not sure of the best way to fix it.

Also, it needs to be realised that the resolution of the IR/IC issue was
made by arbitrary decision of the Chair. I agree there was no better way
to resolve it (though naturally I disagree with the side of the fence that
the Chair fell onto :-) ). Ordinarily, one might ask the IETF to resolve
such dilemmas, but this case depends on a detailed understanding of the
foibles of newsgroup propagation).

>I'm hoping that we'll close this WG soon.

I think we need to review the list of things we once had on our list of
future work, and to decide which of them to do (which might be zero, of
course). But some of them are mentioned in our draft as future
possibilities, and such references might need to be edited out at some
later stage.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5