Subject: Status of working group last call on BIND

From: Joe Hildebrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 00:05:21 -0700

Please send a note to the list if you reviewed BIND for the last call.
I'd like to make sure we had enough eyes on it.

If there are any outstanding issues that, for whatever reason, didn't 
make it into Bugzilla, please enter them ASAP.  I've seen a couple go 
by on the list that I don't see in the system.

Here is a list of the issues I see on bugzilla.

---
http://ietf.webdav.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
"Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings interact with
locks."

I see consensus for the clarification text proposed and wordsmithed here
on the list.

---
http://ietf.webdav.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
"Bindings and DeltaV aren't fully interspecified"

Of the text I've seen for this, that says that the interaction is
unspecified, I don't see enough consensus on that suggestion to hold
things up.

---
http://ietf.webdav.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71
"Clarify what servers may and may not do with privileges when BIND is
used"

I don't see consensus for making a change.  However, I want to make 
sure I understand the issue before I predict how the IESG will react to 
this during their last call.  I'll post a message to the list with some 
thoughts.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand
Denver, CO, USA

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 10:11:42 -0800

> by on the list that I don't see in the system.
Thanks for the reminder, I've done that now.

Lisa

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 00:16:59 +0100

Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> make it into Bugzilla, please enter them ASAP.  I've seen a couple go by 
> on the list that I don't see in the system.
> 
> I don't see consensus for making a change.  However, I want to make sure 
> I understand the issue before I predict how the IESG will react to this 
> during their last call.  I'll post a message to the list with some 
> thoughts.

Thanks Joe,

from my p.o.v.:

#2) Should be closed: consensus for the change made with 
<http://www.webdav.org/bind/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.issue.2.7_unlock_vs_bindings>

#5) Should be closed: has 0 votes on it

#71) Should be closed: has only 1 vote on it from Elias, and he's 
satisfied with the explanations and changes made 
(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JanMar/0163.html>).

#71b) The question raised by you, Joe, in 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JanMar/0165.html> 
is IMHO a distinct issue, it's being tracked with 
<http://www.webdav.org/bind/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.issue.9_ns_op_and_acl>, 
you may want to open a new BugZilla issue if you feel that there's a 
risk that we're not following up properly.

Regarding the three issues raised post-last-call: please give guidance 
on how to proceed. So far, there aren't any votes on them, and it 
doesn't seem any new feedback is coming in. I think we still should plan 
to submit a document for publication in time before the IETF, which is 
roughly two weeks from now.

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:33:26 +0100

> roughly two weeks from now.

I note that no further discussion has taken place since the issues were 
entered (and replied to). There are also no votes on them so far.

Unless there's any new discussion on these topics, I'll submit the 
current spec before the end of the next week and ask the WG chairs to 
submit it to the IESG for last call.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:49:31 +0100

OK,

as announced one week ago, I have submitted the current draft text as 
version -11. As far as I can tell, all issues that have been raised 
during the working group last call should be closed according to the 
procedure outlined by Joe 
(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JanMar/0001.html>).

Three additional issues were raised after last call. They have been 
answered, and there was no further discussion since (> 2 weeks ago). 
Also, they don't have any votes in the issue tracker, so they should be 
closed as well.

Thus, it seems we're done WGLC-wise. The next step now is to submit this 
draft for publication as RFC, which will result in another last call in 
which possibly remaining issues can be raised. Joe, Lisa?

Best regards, Julian

>> doesn't seem any new feedback is coming in. I think we still should 
>> plan to submit a document for publication in time before the IETF, 
>> which is roughly two weeks from now.
> 
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:57:02 +0100

> which possibly remaining issues can be raised. Joe, Lisa?

Lisa, Joe,

it would be nice if you could follow up on how to proceed. As far as I 
can tell, we're done, and draft 11 should be sent to the IESG for 
approval as Proposed Standard.

What am I missing?

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:48:18 -0800

I've limited myself to the role of reviewer on BIND because I wanted to  
do a bunch of technical and spec clarity reviews.  Normally that's well  
within the scope of a chair and in fact expected of them, but it seemed  
to be causing some tension in this case so process stuff for BIND is  
all in Joe's hands.

Lisa

On Feb 25, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>> Also, they don't have any votes in the issue tracker, so they should  
>> be closed as well.
>> Thus, it seems we're done WGLC-wise. The next step now is to submit  
>> this draft for publication as RFC, which will result in another last  
>> call in which possibly remaining issues can be raised. Joe, Lisa?
>
> Lisa, Joe,
>