Subject: [Syslog] protocol document review

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 06:32:32 -0400

Hi,

The protocol document has been republished. Since the document had
been submitted to the IESG for approval, and been through IETF Last
Call, and the republication addressed issues raised during IETF Last
Call, the post-IETF-Last-Call approval process is continuing
automatically. We are in the very final stages of approval of this
document. 

The protocol document is scheduled to be considered for advancement to
Proposed Standard by the IESG at their June 21st meeting.

These excerpts from RFC2026 describe what Proposed Standard means:
   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.

   A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with
   respect to the requirements placed upon it. 

So, Proposed Standard is the first stage of the standards track. As
the document moves from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard, and
multiple independent implementers work with the specifications,
discussion will occur about how to improve any ambiguities or
implementation issues in the specification.  

Be aware:

1) if you want to add input to this process, you need to review this
document NOW, or your comments will be too late. If your comments are
more than just editorial corrections, your comments also should be
copied to [email-masked].

2) If you see something that is **wrong**, please raise it as a
stopper issue, so we can take the document back from the IESG, and
stop the approval process.

3) There is a difference between "wrong" and "not perfect"; we are
looking for "good enough". If you raise issues and argue that they
must be addressed, you will effectively derail the approval process
for this document, and for the udp and tls documents the remaining
documents in this WG that depend on the protocol document. So before
you raise an issue, ask yourself - Is the issue important enough to
derail the approval process, to prevent the document from being
published at the first stage of the standards track?

I am trying to make people aware of just where we are in the process,
and what impact raising less-than-critical issues could have at this
point. We definitely want your reviews to help us advance a "good
enough" specification onto the standards track.

David Harrington
[email-masked] 
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
co-chair, Syslog WG 

_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog