Re: Status of RFC2518Bis (Was Re: Remaining issues with the bind draft -- process)

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> What's been holding up RFC2518bis is lack of clear consensus -- or a  
> reliable way of determining it -- on several issues.  When we're ready,  
> we can reintroduce discussion on those issues and see if now there is a  
> clear consensus or a way to determine one.
> The most high-level issue is whether RFC2518bis is intended to be a  
> proposed standard or a draft standard.  I believe this issue is implied  
> by the proposal to remove locking from RFC2518 -- a change that big,  
> even though it's a feature removal, may require recycling at proposed  
> standard.


that proposal has been made *because* of the lack of process; not the 
other way around.

Locking has been optional in RFC2518, so there shouldn't be any problem 
whatsoever having a RFC2518bis-minus-locking going to draft. In fact 
it'll be easier because locking is the area that needs most attention.

That being said, what *is* your position regarding separating locking 
into a separate document?

Regards, Julian

<green/>bytes GmbH -- -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2004 15:23:47 UTC