Subject: Re: [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 12:00:19 -0400

>>>>     I'm sure that the wg is likely to be ok with wg drafts, but
>>>>     let's do the normal process. Please submit first as
>>>>     individual draft and we will call later for wg adoption.
>>>
>>>   For whatever my opinion as a participant is worth, that would be
>>>   meaningless, time-wasting, ritual for its own sake.
>>
>> disagree. the step from individual to wg is the normal process and has
>> no impact on technical work: the technical work can continue whatever
>> the filename is. Let’s spend time on technical discussions on the
>> content of the to-be-published draft.
>
> I have no preference, but to be clear the -00 versions will be exactly what
> is in the published RFCs so that we can more easily track changes.

As AD for now, still, I'll say that I do have a preference, and a
rather strong one: these are updates to documents the working group
has already published.  The working group has already decided to
update them.  Please just submit them as working group documents from
the start.  Even going through motions here makes a statement that the
working group is not working on what it agreed to work on.

Barry

---

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 13:08:51 -0300

On 3 Apr 2016, at 13:00, Barry Leiba wrote:

> the start.

Ok. So Peter just publish it and I’ll approve it.

Marc.

> Even going through motions here makes a statement that the

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 15:21:14 -0400

--On Sunday, April 03, 2016 12:00 PM -0400 Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I have no preference, but to be clear the -00 versions will
>> be exactly what is in the published RFCs so that we can more
>> easily track changes.
> 
> As AD for now, still, I'll say that I do have a preference,
> and a rather strong one: these are updates to documents the
> working group has already published.  The working group has
> already decided to update them.  Please just submit them as
> working group documents from the start.  Even going through
> motions here makes a statement that the working group is not
> working on what it agreed to work on.

Thanks. 
   john

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 09:50:43 -0600

> working group is not working on what it agreed to work on.

-00 versions submitted.

These are as close as I could make the documents to the published RFCs. 
By the end of the week I will publish -01 versions incorporating the 
fixes previously outlined.

Peter

---

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 12:54:50 -0300

> -00 versions submitted.

thanks. I approved them. published.

Marc.

>
> These are as close as I could make the documents to the published 
> RFCs. By the end of the week I will publish -01 versions incorporating 
> the fixes previously outlined.
>
> Peter