Subject: [NNTP] More Last Call Completions

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:50:12 -0400

IETF last calls have been completed for these working group documents:

draft-ietf-nntpext-authinfo
draft-ietf-nntpext-tls-nntp
draft-ietf-nntpext-streaming

There were several comments received and discussed during the last call
period:

draft-ietf-nntpext-authinfo:
Comment from Mark Crispin that "These documents should be part of the base
NNTP specification".

draft-ietf-nntpext-tls-nntp:
Exchange with Eric Rescorla et al.

draft-ietf-nntpext-streaming:
General area review from Elwyn Davies.

Russ (your PROTO shepherd): What's being done to address these comments?
Are revisions needed?  Let me know.

-Scott-

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:54:13 -0400

Sorry, forgot to mention the editorial issues noted during AD review, too:

http://lists.eyrie.org/pipermail/ietf-nntp/2005-May/001346.html

http://lists.eyrie.org/pipermail/ietf-nntp/2005-May/001347.html

-Scott-

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:48:33 -0400

> Are revisions needed?  Let me know.

I'm working on edits right now.  I'll send the diffs to the list for 
review before I submit them to the editor.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison     Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer     21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26      Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key--    http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:27:57 -0700

> Comment from Mark Crispin that "These documents should be part of the base

I don't believe that making this change at this stage is worth the delay
that it would incur.  I would rather look at merging the documents at a
later stage, perhaps at Draft Standard stage, once we know how widely
implemented AUTHINFO SASL is.  Right now, AUTHINFO SASL is fairly new and
unproven compared to what's in the base draft.

> Exchange with Eric Rescorla et al.

Ken is working on a revision for this.

> General area review from Elwyn Davies.

I commented on the specific bits where I agreed; I'm not sure that I agree
with the other comments.  I'd really like to see more discussion of this
message from the other WG participants.

I don't think that setting up a response registry is something we should
tackle at this stage in the process; instead, I think we should defer it.

New versions of all three extension documents are needed to address the
editorial comments as well as the TLS review and some of the comments from
Elwyn Davies.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 08:45:01 +0100

> unproven compared to what's in the base draft.

Thanks to xml2rfc, the editing work in doing such a merge would be fairly
simple.

However, that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea right now. Firstly
because the content needs review by different audiences, and secondly
because this makes a good test of the extension processes. And thirdly
because the document is big enough already for reviewers to deal with.

As you say, a later stage might be a good time to do a merge of those
facilities which have gained acceptance.

> tackle at this stage in the process; instead, I think we should defer it.

I'm not totally convinced it's necessary, either. See my previous message
on the topic.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <[email-masked]>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <[email-masked]>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            |