Subject: Re: recent thread

From: Sally Hambridge <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 13:54:34 PDT

Sorry for not joining into this discussion earlier, I've been
up to my ears in work.

Ted - a short delay on the draft is fine, but I'd like to make
sure it's gone the the I-D in good time to make the deadline
so we have a real draft to discuss at the meeting in DC.

Jonathon - I think April has done a good job of explaining what
we're trying to accomplish here.  We are NOT producing anything
with the force of law or even the force of peer pressure.  We are
producing a document which gives guidelines on advertising using
the Internet.   For an RFC which is informational, there is not
even the enforcement mechanisms that a Standards Track doc has.
(In other words, we're not going to fail any interoperability
testing.)  An Informational RFC is a document meant just to give
information to the Internet community.  No standard, no current
practice, just information.  This is all we're trying to do.

One thing to know about IETF working groups is that in general
the IESG wants groups to work towards achievable goals.  They
want milestones which are clearly defined and they want to
see progress towards those milestones.  This draft is our
remaining milestone.  We don't want to change the focus.

So, as April has suggested, you might want to consider writing
your own document about the issues you've raised.

Sally
[email-masked]