Subject: moving along on rules language

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:55:16 -0700

[ speaking as co-chair...]

the milestones require that we have a rules language draft this month.
    
thus far, there's been only one candidate (that has seen a fair amount of
feedback during pre-WG times, but only very narrow feedback recently).
    
we need to decide whether we want to finish opes.
    
if not, let's disband now, and i can go back to managing some other
disasters.
    
otherwise, then unless someone can produce a credible alternative pdq,
we should start with the beck irml document, finish it, and then
decide whether there's a concensus (just like we're doing with the
document alex is working on).

any objections?

/mtr

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:27:02 -0600 (MDT)

> otherwise, then unless someone can produce a credible alternative pdq,

Could you please briefly define/describe rough credibility criteria?
For example, does the alternative need to come as an ID comparable to
irml-03 in size? Does the alternative have to cover HTTP and other
application-specific things that irml-03 covers (though there may
already be consensus that those things do not belong to IRML Core)?

I can come up with an alternative that a reasonable technical person
would understand and can extrapolate, but I need to know the minimum
requirements better so that I do not waste time on something that
cannot be accepted as a viable alternative in the nearest future.

Thank you,

Alex.

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:08:28 -0700

> Could you please briefly define/describe rough credibility criteria?
    
sure.

> irml-03 in size?
    
no. beck-irml-03 is pretty much fleshed-out, so i'd expect an
alternative to be copmlete enough for someone to understand what's going
on, without having all the detail filled-in.

> Does the alternative have to cover HTTP and other
    
the charter says HTTP is a MUST, others aren't. so the alternative, at a
minimum, MUST deal with with HTTP

> cannot be accepted as a viable alternative in the nearest future.

great. if your confident with an alternative approach, put an initial
document together and submit it. i don't want to forestall alternatives,
but we need to be wrapping things up. (we also need that other document
you were working on.)
    
at some point the iesg is going to ask what we've done for them *lately*,
and right now, markus and i don't have much of a response.
    
thanks!
    
/mtr

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:55:51 -0600 (MDT)

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Marshall Rose wrote:

> great. if your confident with an alternative approach, put an
> initial document together and submit it. i don't want to forestall
> alternatives, but we need to be wrapping things up.

I hope to submit an alternative draft for WG review by Tuesday.

> (we also need that other document you were working on.)

It is in the IESG queue.

Alex.

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:44:49 -0700

> I hope to submit an alternative draft for WG review by Tuesday.

good.

> > (we also need that other document you were working on.)

IESG queue? i don't think so. you meant to say that you sent it to the I-D
repository, right?

/mtr

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:50:59 -0600 (MDT)

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Marshall Rose wrote:

> IESG queue? i don't think so. you meant to say that you sent it to
> the I-D repository, right?

Probably. I just send to [email-masked] without knowing what
it is called. I know the reaction is not immediate or 100% automated
so I called it an IESG queue. Sorry for using the wrong term.

The drafts have been published this morning.

Thanks,

Alex.