Subject: OPEs Documents Status

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:57:41 -0500

Folks,

apology for the delay, here's the long due status report on where we
are with our documents and how to proceed.

Drafts in RFC Editor queue
--------------------------
  - draft-ietf-opes-architecture (Informational)
    Shown as "Holding for normative reference" (our threats draft)

  - draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs (Informational)
    Shown as "Holding for normative reference" (our architecture draft)

  - draft-ietf-opes-scenarios (Informational)

  - draft-ietf-opes-threats (Informational)
    Shown as "Holding for normative reference" (our "architecture" and
    "authorization" draft)

It seems nothing needs to be done by the WG on these documents, except
for making sure that we get the "authorization" document into the RFC
Editor Queue in order to resolve the various "Holding for normative
reference" blocks.

Drafts we received IESG Feedback
================================
The following drafts have been reviewed by the IESG and need updates 
in order to address IESG comments:

  - draft-ietf-opes-authorization (Informational)
  - draft-ietf-opes-end-comm (Informational)
  - draft-ietf-opes-iab (Informational)

For information on what issues/concerns/comments we've to address, we 
have to rely on the 'Details' listed at the IETF data tracker at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi. That's all the 
information we have so far. We'll try to get more details where needed.

We'll start separate email threads on each of these documents (I'll 
send out mails when I find some time later today). For the IAB draft, 
let's continue discussion on the thread Alex and Hilarie started.

Drafts awaiting IESG action
============================
  - draft-ietf-opes-ocp-core (Proposed Standard)
  - draft-ietf-opes-http (Proposed Standard)

If I'm not mistaken, there's nothing to do for the WG at the moment.

Open Drafts
===========
  - draft-ietf-opes-rules-p-02

This draft is pending at the moment, since we first wanted to get 
clarification with our AD on how to proceed. Sicne we had a change in 
ADs, we need to followup again. I'll send another note to our AD.

Thanks,
   Markus