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 PROTECTED] 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 PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] co-chair, Syslog WG _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
