Subject: Procedure for handling Last Call comments on the Requirements I-D

From: John Strassner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:37:27 -0800

LDUPers,

thanks for the spirited review of the requirements I-D during the Last Call 
period. This memo will define the procedure that will be used to respond to 
the issues raised in the requirements I-D Last Call. It is being written 
with the WG Chair Hat firmly on. ;-)

First, though, I would like to comment that this draft has been out a LONG 
TIME. While I appreciate people analyzing and commenting on the document, 
it worries me that most of these issues, which have been there a LONG time, 
didn't come out until the second week of the last call period. I know that 
everyone is busy, but please do try and review the next version of this 
draft in a timely manner.

Now, as far as procedure, these are the steps that will be followed. First, 
I will issue a set of memos, each focused on a specific set of related 
comments that arose during Last Call. The memos to be issued are summaries 
and recommendations on the following threads:

   - RE: WG Last Call on the LDAPv3 Directory Replication I-D
   - "equally capable" Requirments and Tim Hahn's message
   - Comments on draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-06.txt
   - several counts (Was: WG Last Call on the LDAPv3 Directory
     Replication I-D)
   - draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-06.txt terminology

In each pf these five memos, I will summarize the issues, and indicate 
where I believe we have and do not have WG consensus. On items that we have 
consensus to change the requirements I-D, to add new requirements, or to 
clarify existing requirements, I will clearly indicate what is to be done. 
On all other items, I encourage the authors of the requirements I-D to 
respond to try and attain closure. While continued discussion can certainly 
go on, the first goal is to release a new version of the requirements draft 
asap. It is crucial that, in order to make progress, we accept WG 
consensus. Therefore, at some point, if discussion continues, I will as 
Chair ask that the discussion stops. If anyone still has an issue, then I 
would request those people to talk in private with me and Patrik.

The cumulative set of memos issued by me will define a minimum set of 
changes to make to the requirements I-D. These will result in an update to 
the current I-D. Once all of my memos are issued, I would like the 
requirements I-D authors to respond within one week to indicate when they 
can have an update ready for WG review. In order to maximize time, I fully 
expect and encourage the WG members to respond to each memo (which I will 
issue as quickly as possible) as soon as they can.

Once the revised I-D hits the repository, we will then have another two 
weeks to review the new I-D. Assuming that nothing major is discovered, I 
will announce a second WG Last Call, to last another two weeks. If anyone 
thinks that this is not enough time, please speak up now and clearly 
indicate why. You had better have a very good argument. ;-)

thanks and kind regards,
John Strassner, with Chair hat ON

---

From: John Strassner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 05:33:04 -0800

LDUPers,

sorry, there is a typo in my message. I wrote:

but I meant:

     - "equally capable" Requirments and other comments from Kurt Zeilenga

My apologies.

regards,
John

>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:37:27 -0800
>To: [email-masked]
>From: John Strassner <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Procedure for handling Last Call comments on the Requirements I-D
>Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
>
>LDUPers,
>
>thanks for the spirited review of the requirements I-D during the Last 
>Call period. This memo will define the procedure that will be used to 
>respond to the issues raised in the requirements I-D Last Call. It is 
>being written with the WG Chair Hat firmly on. ;-)
>
>it worries me that most of these issues, which have been there a LONG 
>time, didn't come out until the second week of the last call period. I 
>know that everyone is busy, but please do try and review the next version 
>of this draft in a timely manner.
>
>Now, as far as procedure, these are the steps that will be followed. 
>First, I will issue a set of memos, each focused on a specific set of 
>related comments that arose during Last Call. The memos to be issued are 
>summaries and recommendations on the following threads:
>
>where I believe we have and do not have WG consensus. On items that we 
>have consensus to change the requirements I-D, to add new requirements, or 
>to clarify existing requirements, I will clearly indicate what is to be 
>done. On all other items, I encourage the authors of the requirements I-D 
>to respond to try and attain closure. While continued discussion can 
>certainly go on, the first goal is to release a new version of the 
>requirements draft asap. It is crucial that, in order to make progress, we 
>accept WG consensus. Therefore, at some point, if discussion continues, I 
>will as Chair ask that the discussion stops. If anyone still has an issue, 
>then I would request those people to talk in private with me and Patrik.
>