RE: WG Last Call: Redirect Reference Resources

I would like to formally object to this last call. I apologize for the delay
in objecting but I am just now managing to dig my way out of my e-mail after
having to fly off to Israel for a family emergency.

A last call is an extremely time consuming process requiring members of this
WG, who are all volunteers, to turn their attentions to the careful review
of the specification and the production of thoughtful comments.

In this case, however, the very people who are best qualified to review the
redirect draft are the very same people who are currently in the process of
providing a review of the bind spec. By issuing a last call we are demanding
that individuals, who are for the most part already using what little spare
time they have to review the bind spec, also somehow find time to review the
redirect reference draft.

Given the large number of substantive issues that have already been
generated by the BIND spec, given that these issues have already generated
several significant alterations to the language of the BIND spec and given
that we are barely half way through these issues I believe it is
inappropriate now ask the members of this working group to split their focus
and provide  their full attention to the redirect draft.

As such I ask that this last call be postponed until we have finished going
through the issues on BIND.

			Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Whitehead [mailto:ejw@ics.uci.edu]
> Sent: Tue, January 25, 2000 11:35 AM
> To: WebDAV WG
> Subject: WG Last Call: Redirect Reference Resources
> 
> 
> 
> *** WORKING GROUP LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS ***
> 
> WEBDAV REDIRECT REFERENCE RESOURCES SPECIFICATION
> 
> <draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-02>
> http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/webdav/collection/draft-ietf-w
> ebdav-redirect
> ref-protocol-02.txt
> 
> This is the final call for comments from the working group on 
> the WebDAV
> Redirect Reference Resources protocol specification,
> draft-ietf-webdav-binding-protocol-02. This last call period begins
> immediately, and ends February 22, 2000, at midnight, US 
> Pacific time.  This
> allows 4 weeks for review of this specification.
> 
> At the end of the last call period, a new draft will be 
> issued that resolves
> comments raised during the last call period.  Depending on 
> the scope of
> changes, there will follow either an immediate call for rough 
> consensus
> (very few changes), or a second last call period (significant 
> changes). Once
> the document represents the rough consensus of the working 
> group, I will
> submit this document to the Internet Engineering Steering 
> Group (IESG) for
> their approval. IESG review involves a (minimum) two week 
> public last call
> for comments review period. This IESG-initiated last call period is in
> addition to the working group last call period.
> 
> This document is intended to be a "Proposed Standard".  
> Quoting from RFC
> 2026, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3":
> 
>    The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
>    Standard".  A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
>    specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"
>    level.
> 
>    A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
>    known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, 
> has received
>    significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
>    interest to be considered valuable.  However, further experience
>    might result in a change or even retraction of the specification
>    before it advances.
> 
>    Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
>    required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
>    Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable, and will
>    usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
>    designation.
> 
> Many details on the procedures used to develop an IETF 
> standard can be found
> in RFC 2026, available at:
> 
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt
> 
> If there are any procedural questions or concerns, please do 
> not hesitate to
> contact me, or raise an issue on the list.
> 
> Notes:
> 
> 1) This specification is one of three that have been 
> developed in tandem,
> the other two being the WebDAV Bindings Protocol,
> <draft-ietf-webdav-binding-protocol-02>, which just finished 
> a working group
> last call for comments period on January 24, and the Ordered 
> Collections
> Protocol, draft-ietf-webdav-ordering-protocol-02.  The 
> Ordered Collections
> Protocol will begin a working group last call for comments period
> immediately following the end of this last call period, on 
> February 23,
> 2000.  If you wish, you may submit comments on the Ordered Collections
> protocol and the Redirect References protocol together during 
> the present
> last call period.
> 
> 2) If you've been waiting for a "stable" version of the 
> specification before
> performing a review, wait no longer.  This is it.  Assuming the
> specification receives only positive feedback, or mostly 
> minor comments, it
> will be submitted to the IESG for approval with no further WG 
> last call
> periods.  You should treat this as your last opportunity to 
> provide feedback
> on the specification.  Review the specification NOW.
> 
> 
> - Jim Whitehead
> Chair, IETF WEBDAV Working Group
>

Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2000 16:07:00 UTC