Re: PCLS when? [was: Re: Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt]

Joel M. Halpern wrote, On 05/14/03 09:15:
> At the moment I am still operating on the assumption that the IESG will 
> get the user schema document unstuck.  We went through a lot of 
> discussion in earlier reviews to arrive at the agreement that we would 
> use that document as the basis for those aspects of our LDAP work.
> I am loath to attempt to change that conclusion unless the AD informs us 
> that the zeilenga document will not be going forward.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern

Joel, all,

It has now been nearly seven months since we were advised that
the PCLS (Policy Core LDAP Schema) was approved by the IESG. Why
can't the RFC be published?

How long must PCLS wait for the draft (draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema)
upon which it unnecessarily depends? According to the IETF's
Internet Draft Status Tracker facility, the status of draft-zeilenga-
ldap-user-schema has not changed since April 17. Is it reasonable for
PCLS to wait upon an activity which is apparently not making progress?

I have reviewed the archives of this (Policy WG) list and cannot find
any of the discussion to which Joel refers, above. I could have simply
missed it. Is there some documentation of "a lot of discussion in
earlier reviews..."?

I reiterate: I haven't seen a convincing argument for retaining PCLS's
dependency upon draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema. Please see my note

RE: PCLS when? [was: Re: Approved: draft-ietf-policy-co re-schema-16.txt]

> Joel, all,
> 
> It has now been nearly seven months since we were advised that
> the PCLS (Policy Core LDAP Schema) was approved by the IESG. Why
> can't the RFC be published?
> 
Larry, we have explained MULTIPLE times now why it cannot be published.
And if the situation does not change, then the explanation will
remain the same, and we can NOT publish.

> How long must PCLS wait for the draft 
> (draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema)
> upon which it unnecessarily depends? 

You seem to be the only one who believes that it is not a normative
reference. The IESG approved the PCLS with the normative reference 
present, and so the doc MUST wait till that normative reference
shows up as an RFC.

> According to the IETF's Internet Draft Status Tracker facility,
> the status of draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema has not changed since
> April 17. Is it reasonable for PCLS to wait upon an activity which
> is apparently not making progress?
>
I can tell you that that doc has been discussed a few times in the IESG
lately and that the  responsible AD (Ted Hardie) is trying to work out
a resolution. Ted... any more you want to add?

Bert
AD-hat on.

RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-mod el-10.txt

WG chairs, may I assume that the revision 10 document is now
OK with the WG and that I can issue IETF Last Call for it?

For those who want to check, I have colored diffs between rev8 and rev10
and between rev 9 and rev 10 at:

  http://www.psg.com/~bwijnen/qddim0810.html
  http://www.psg.com/~bwijnen/qddim0910.html

One nit (can be fixed at later point): Walter Weiss has a new
email address/affiliation

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Moore [mailto:remoore <at> us.ibm.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 23 mei 2003 21:20
> To: policy <at> ietf.org
> Cc: bwijnen <at> lucent.com; ellesson <at> mindspring.com; joel <at> stevecrocker.com
> Subject: RE: [Policy] AD review of:
> draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-mode l-08.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've submitted QDDIM-10 to the I-D's repository.  The major 
> change from

RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-mod el-10.txt

Yes.
Thank you,
Joel

At 04:11 PM 6/3/2003 +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>WG chairs, may I assume that the revision 10 document is now
>OK with the WG and that I can issue IETF Last Call for it?
>
>For those who want to check, I have colored diffs between rev8 and rev10
>and between rev 9 and rev 10 at:
>
>   http://www.psg.com/~bwijnen/qddim0810.html
>   http://www.psg.com/~bwijnen/qddim0910.html
>
>One nit (can be fixed at later point): Walter Weiss has a new
>email address/affiliation
>
>Thanks,
>Bert
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Moore [mailto:remoore <at> us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: vrijdag 23 mei 2003 21:20
> > To: policy <at> ietf.org
> > Cc: bwijnen <at> lucent.com; ellesson <at> mindspring.com; joel <at> stevecrocker.com
> > Subject: RE: [Policy] AD review of:
> > draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-mode l-08.txt
> >
> >
> >

RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-mod el-10.txt

IETF Las Call has been requested for both documents
as Proposed Standard

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:joel <at> stevecrocker.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 3 juni 2003 17:32
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); ellesson <at> mindspring.com
> Cc: policy <at> ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Policy] AD review of:
> draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-mod el-10.txt
> 
> 
> Yes.
> Thank you,
> Joel
> 
> At 04:11 PM 6/3/2003 +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> >WG chairs, may I assume that the revision 10 document is now
> >OK with the WG and that I can issue IETF Last Call for it?
> >
> >For those who want to check, I have colored diffs between 
> rev8 and rev10
> >and between rev 9 and rev 10 at:
> >
> >   http://www.psg.com/~bwijnen/qddim0810.html
> >   http://www.psg.com/~bwijnen/qddim0910.html
> >

Last Call: Information Model for Describing Network Device QoS Datapath Mechanisms to Proposed Standard

The IESG has received a request from the Policy Framework Working 
Group to consider Information Model for Describing Network Device 
QoS Datapath Mechanisms <draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-10.txt> 
as a Proposed Standard.  

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the 
iesg <at> ietf.org or ietf <at> ietf.org mailing lists by 2003-6-17.

Files can be obtained via 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-10.txt

Last Call: Policy QoS Information Model to Proposed Standard

The IESG has received a request from the Policy Framework Working 
Group to consider Policy QoS Information Model 
<draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard.  

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the 
iesg <at> ietf.org or ietf <at> ietf.org mailing lists by 2003-6-17.

Files can be obtained via 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-05.txt

RE: PCLS when? [was: Re: Approved: draft-ietf-policy-co re-schema-16.txt]

>
>  > According to the IETF's Internet Draft Status Tracker facility,
>>  the status of draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema has not changed since
>>  April 17. Is it reasonable for PCLS to wait upon an activity which
>>  is apparently not making progress?
>>
>
>I can tell you that that doc has been discussed a few times in the IESG
>lately and that the  responsible AD (Ted Hardie) is trying to work out
>a resolution. Ted... any more you want to add?

After the review comments, Kurt has come to believe that the current
document is actually too much of a grab bag, and that it probably
needs to be split to make progress.  We have had some discussion
on where those splits should be, and it does look likely that one
of the "daughter" documents will contain just the matching rules,
which will enable this to unstick.  We're working through right
now where that leaves in terms of process (e.g., do we need to
have a new IETF last call, since all of the text in this has previously
been last called?).

I've updated the tracker to reflect the "new ID needed" state, which
is as close as we can come in the current system.  Sorry that hadn't
been done before, things were in flux enough that I haven't been
sure how to mark this.

			regards,
				Ted Hardie

RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-mod el-10.txt

Yes, thanks!
Ed

On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 10:11, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> WG chairs, may I assume that the revision 10 document is now
> OK with the WG and that I can issue IETF Last Call for it?
> 
> For those who want to check, I have colored diffs between rev8 and rev10
> and between rev 9 and rev 10 at:
> 
>   http://www.psg.com/~bwijnen/qddim0810.html
>   http://www.psg.com/~bwijnen/qddim0910.html
> 
> One nit (can be fixed at later point): Walter Weiss has a new
> email address/affiliation
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Moore [mailto:remoore <at> us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: vrijdag 23 mei 2003 21:20
> > To: policy <at> ietf.org
> > Cc: bwijnen <at> lucent.com; ellesson <at> mindspring.com; joel <at> stevecrocker.com
> > Subject: RE: [Policy] AD review of:
> > draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-mode l-08.txt
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 

(no subject)