Subject: RE: (multi6) 53rd IETF Meeting

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:19:00 -0800

Ran,

> RJ Atkinson wrote:
> The fact that you have an "issues" list circulating on the list
> is a pretty compelling argument that we don't have a document ready
> for WG Last Call.  Now if the WG thinks those issues are now
> "resolved" and they should be put into the document, that is fine,
> but such has not been crystal clear to me at least.

That document was supposed to be the edits of the WG last call.
Since you have contributed to it I think you will agree that the
proposed changes are cosmetic, and the new requirements are not
anywhere near the audience they need to actually become new
requirements, except for maybe for topic 3.

> Normally an IETF document is not ready for WG Last Call until
> after the document has all updates and stops changing for
> weeks/months.

Maybe this needs to be balanced with the fact that this workgroup
has not reached any of the milestones mentioned in its charter
since London.

Michel.

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 08:12:49 -0500

> has not reached any of the milestones mentioned in its charter

I'm hard pressed to think of ANY IETF WG that met its milestones.
I'm not saying that missing milestones is good, but rather that
missing milestones is not, by itself, unusual.

IMHO, procedurally we need to get the document edited to reflect
the changes currently circulating (provided no one on the list
objects at this point to the proposed changes), then determine
that no more changes are appropriate, then do a WG Last Call.

And I think all that is possible to resolve via email on the list,
which seems to be the chair's preferred approach.

Ran
[email-masked]