Re: [Ecrit] Milestone Update

["Brian Rosen" <br at brianrosen.net>]

If the decisions have been made, the page should reflect them.  If by
"decisions made" you mean "chairs have decided, ADs have not acted yet" then
the page should only reflect the current chartered items.  If RPH was
formerly chartered, for example, it should appear.

If RPH is not chartered, and it is not decided to add it on a re-charter,
then we need to know why, as it seems to me that it meets the "rough
consensus" test in the WG.

-framework definitely should be informational.  
I was never sure what I should do with phonebcp.  It doesn't introduce any
new protocol, feature or option, it just strings them together.  However, it
can hardly be called a Best CURRENT Practice.  I will abide by working group
consensus on the matter.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 8:05 AM
> To: ext DRAGE, Keith (Keith); ECRIT
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Milestone Update
> 
> I guess you misunderstood my question.
> 
> The decisions regarding what documents will be included in the
> re-chartering of the group have been made already.
> 
> I am only doing a webpage update to reflect more realistic dates and
> text.
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ext DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:drage at alcatel-lucent.com]
> >Sent: 09 January, 2009 14:45
> >To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); ECRIT
> >Subject: RE: Milestone Update
> >
> >
> >
> >> * I really didn't know what todo about the RPH document for the
> >> milestone update. If I put it there (since it is already on
> >our page)
> >> then other draft authors would complain why there document
> >isn't there
> >> either.
> >
> >There is no reason for you to be considering all the
> >candidates as a single group of documents.
> >
> >Either you believe there is rough consensus to move forward
> >and ask for milestones on RPH, or you do not.
> >
> >If you do not, can we please know what the concerns are so
> >they can be addressed.
> >
> >regards
> >
> >Keith
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org]
> >On Behalf
> >> Of Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
> >> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 11:28 AM
> >> To: ECRIT
> >> Subject: [Ecrit] Milestone Update
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I thought it might be useful to quickly update our milestones. By
> >> preparing the text I ran into a few questions:
> >>
> >> * Wasn't PhoneBCP supposed to be a BCP? The draft says
> >Standards Track
> >> * The ECRIT framework drafts says Standards Track. Wouldn't
> >that be an
> >> informational document?
> >> * Do we really need a Standards Track document for the synchronizing
> >> mappings? Wouldn't an informational document be sufficient?
> >> * I really didn't know what todo about the RPH document for the
> >> milestone update. If I put it there (since it is already on
> >our page)
> >> then other draft authors would complain why there document
> >isn't there
> >> either.
> >>
> >> -------------------
> >>
> >> Done            Informational RFC containing terminology
> >> definitions and
> >> the requirements
> >> Done            An Informational document describing the threats and
> >> security considerations
> >> Done            A Standards Track RFC on "A Uniform Resource
> >> Name (URN)
> >> for Emergency and Other Well-Known Services"
> >> Done            A Standards Track RFC on "Discovering LoST
> >> Servers Using
> >> DHCP"
> >> Done            A Standards Track RFC describing the
> >> Location-to-Service
> >> Translation (LoST) Protocol
> >> Done            An Informational document describing the Mapping
> >> Protocol Architecture
> >> Done            Submit 'Location Hiding: Problem Statement and
> >> Requirements' to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC
> >> Done            Submit 'Specifying Holes in LoST Service
> >> Boundaries' to
> >> the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC
> >> Feb 2009        Submit 'Best Current Practice for Communications
> >> Services in support of Emergency Calling' to the IESG for
> >> consideration as an BCP RFC
> >> Feb 2009        Submit 'Framework for Emergency Calling
> >using Internet
> >> Multimedia' to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC
> >> Feb 2009        Submit 'Synchronizing Location-to-Service
> Translation
> >> (LoST) Servers' to the IESG for consideration as an Informational
> RFC
> >>
> >> -------------------
> >>
> >> Regarding the dates:
> >>
> >> When am I going to see an update of Phone BCP/Framework so
> >that I have
> >> some reason to believe that the Feb milestone is accomplishable?
> >> Based on the changes the document has seen since the last
> >WGLC we have
> >> todo another short one (1 week).
> >>
> >> Roger is working on the PROTO writeup for the LoST Sync document and
> >> the Feb milestone is accomplishable.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Ciao
> >> Hannes
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ecrit mailing list
> >> Ecrit at ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit