Chris, as far as syslog-protocol is concerned, I think these are realistic milestones/dates. I am sure we can meet mid-year if nothing really bad shows up.
Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: New Milestones and Dates > > Hi Everyone, > > I've updated the WG web page: > http://www.employees.org/~lonvick/index.shtml > In it, and on the IETF WG page, the due dates are a bit past due and > don't reflect the way in which we are now proceeding. I'd > like to propose > these new Milestones and Dates. > > --- > > Jul 04 Submit Syslog Protocol to IESG for consideration as a PROPOSED > STANDARD > > Jul 04 Submit Syslog Transport Mapping to IESG for consideration as a > PROPOSED STANDARD. > > Jul 04 Submit Syslog Device MIB to IESG for consideration as > a PROPOSED > STANDARD. > > Oct 04 Submit Syslog Authentication Protocol to IESG for > consideration as > a PROPOSED STANDARD. > > Oct 04 Submit Syslog Internationalization to IESG for > consideration as > a PROPOSED STANDARD. > > Apr 05 Revise drafts as necessary to advance these Internet-Drafts to > Standards Track RFCs. > > --- > > This will give us about 3 months to resolve issues in > syslog-protocol and > syslog-transport-udp so they may be submitted together. This > will also > give Glenn the same amount of time but it looked like many of > his issues > were resolved during the meeting. After that, we'll have the next 3 > months for Jon to align syslog-sign with > syslog-protocol/transport, and > for us to decide upon how we will address syslog-international. Once > those are done, we can move forward with 3195bis and see > about moving the > documents to Draft Standards. > > Please send in your comments about these dates. Are we being too > optimistic? Do the ID authors/editors need more time? > > Thanks, > Chris > >
