Hi, I have provided similar guidance before, but think I should provide this guidance again, as a gentle reminder. This email will also provide information on the current state of the document. (Because I have sent out this type of email before, I have not "cleared" this message with my co-chair or the responsible AD.)
I don't think we ever announced it, but Pasi Eronen is the new responsible AD for the syslog WG, and the shepherding AD for the syslog-tls draft, replacing Sam Hartman who retired from the IESG. Joe Salowey has taken on the editing responsibility for the syslog-tls draft, since Miao and Yuzhi could no longer devote enough time to syslog WG editing (day job got in the way ;-). The syslog-tls draft has been through WGLC and is in AD-Followup state. The document has not been returned to the WG to do with as we please (i.e., it has not been returned to the "ID-Exists" state). Resolving the issues that were raised by multiple IESG members has resulted in significant changes to the technical specification. Joe has published a new revision of the draft at the request of the shepherding AD to allow the WG a chance to review the draft to make sure the WG concurs with the changes. Here is the official definition of AD-Followup: "A generic substate indicating that the shepherding AD has the action item to determine appropriate next steps. In particular, the appropriate steps (and the corresponding next state or substate) depend entirely on the nature of the issues that were raised and can only be decided with active involvement of the shepherding AD. Examples include: - if another AD raises an issue, the shepherding AD may first iterate with the other AD to get a better understanding of the exact issue. Or, the shepherding AD may attempt to argue that the issue is not serious enough to bring to the attention of the authors/WG. - if a documented issue is forwarded to a WG, some further iteration may be needed before it can be determined whether a new revision is needed or whether the WG response to an issue clarifies the issue sufficiently. - when a new revision appears, the shepherding AD will first look at the changes to determine whether they believe all outstanding issues have been raised satisfactorily, prior to asking the ADs who raised the original issues to verify the changes. " It is useful to get input from implementors, and we may make adjustments based on that input - or not. I encourage implementation feedback. Depending on the size and nature of the change and the level of consensus, it might require us to recharter to do a -bis- of the current document. WG members will also have another chance to review the document and raise other issues, when the document goes through IETF Last Call. I am sure Pasi will be watching the curent input and will make a suitable decision about next steps as part of AD-Followup. I hope this is helpful information. Thanks, David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
