RE: Submission: deltav subset

Roy Seto writes:
> If the WG shuts down, what is the accepted mechanism 
> for hashing out protocol usage issues that surface 
> during implementation?  

A little bit of clarification is probably in order here.

First, the normal life cycle of a working group is to form, develop one or more protocol specifications, then shut down. The act of shutting down simply means the WG doesn't intend on performing any more new protocol development, and is not expected to hold additional WG meetings at IETF conferences.

The mailing list used by the working group typically remains active (for example, the HTTP working group mailing list still works), and interoperability and protocol usage discussions take place there.

There is no established process for revision of RFCs. In the case of HTTP 1.1 going from Proposed to Draft, the process took place on the HTTP WG mailing list, and there were HTTP WG meetings at the IETF during this process. But, it is also acceptable for just the document editors to hash out changes needed to go from Proposed to Draft.  This was the case with RFC 2396 on the URI syntax.

In the case of DeltaV, I think it makes sense to have protocol revision discussion take place on the lists. It also makes sense to keep the WG alive, at least in a quiescent state, so that face to face IETF meetings could be held in the future, if necessary. It would be good for the Chair, Jim Amsden, to confirm with the Application Area directors that this is an acceptable plan, and to see if revision of the charter is necessary to accomplish this.  Without any further input, the ADs may decide that DeltaV is done, and should close, leaving further development to the DeltaV developer community.

In any case, the mailing list will remain up.

- Jim

Received on Monday, 22 October 2001 18:02:37 UTC