Subject: [Syslog] the state of syslog-tls

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 16:06:18 -0400

Hi,

I have provided similar guidance before, but think I should provide
this guidance again, as a gentle reminder. This email will also
provide information on the current state of the document. (Because I
have sent out this type of email before, I have not "cleared" this
message with my co-chair or the responsible AD.)

I don't think we ever announced it, but Pasi Eronen is the new
responsible AD for the syslog WG, and the shepherding AD for the
syslog-tls draft, replacing Sam Hartman who retired from the IESG. Joe
Salowey has taken on the editing responsibility for the syslog-tls
draft, since Miao and Yuzhi could no longer devote enough time to
syslog WG editing (day job got in the way ;-).

The syslog-tls draft has been through WGLC and is in AD-Followup
state. The document has not been returned to the WG to do with as we
please (i.e., it has not been returned to the "ID-Exists" state).

Resolving the issues that were raised by multiple IESG members has
resulted in significant changes to the technical specification. Joe
has published a new revision of the draft at the request of the
shepherding AD to allow the WG a chance to review the draft to make
sure the WG concurs with the changes.

Here is the official definition of AD-Followup:
"A generic substate indicating that the shepherding AD has the action
item to determine appropriate next steps. In particular, the
appropriate steps (and the corresponding next state or substate)
depend entirely on the nature of the issues that were raised and can
only be decided with active involvement of the shepherding AD.
Examples include: - if another AD raises an issue, the shepherding AD
may first iterate with the other AD to get a better understanding of
the exact issue. Or, the shepherding AD may attempt to argue that the
issue is not serious enough to bring to the attention of the
authors/WG. - if a documented issue is forwarded to a WG, some further
iteration may be needed before it can be determined whether a new
revision is needed or whether the WG response to an issue clarifies
the issue sufficiently. - when a new revision appears, the shepherding
AD will first look at the changes to determine whether they believe
all outstanding issues have been raised satisfactorily, prior to
asking the ADs who raised the original issues to verify the changes. "

It is useful to get input from implementors, and we may make
adjustments based on that input - or not. I encourage implementation
feedback. Depending on the size and nature of the change and the level
of consensus, it might require us to recharter to do a -bis- of the
current document. WG members will also have another chance to review
the document and raise other issues, when the document goes through
IETF Last Call.

I am sure Pasi will be watching the curent input and will make a
suitable decision about next steps as part of AD-Followup.

I hope this is helpful information.

Thanks,
David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog