What about option 4:
- Stay within limited scope (use IRML as *guidance*)
- Dont't worry about interfaces
- Specify HTTP rules profile
- Do all this by January
- Discuss further extensions/modifications in potential re-charter.
-Markus
Alex Rousskov wrote:
Geetha, Chairs,
We need to do one thing before we can pursue most of the
excellent ideas you have. We must decide what to do with the current P
draft that is [over]due. Most of the stuff we are talking about is
future P work. We need to decide how to deal with our current
liability first.
Here is the relevant milestone from
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/opes-charter.html
Oct 03 Submit document on rules specification method
to IESG for Proposed Standard.
I see several options:
1 Extend the above deadline. This is an admission
that the WG failed to schedule a deadline
correctly. This does not require AD/IESG review,
only WG chair action (AFAIK). This might be
blocked by an AD, but since we are delivering
on other deadlines, I think our AD can be
forgiving.
2 Submit the current draft now, with minimum changes
and no additions. IMO, this is an admission that
the WG failed to produce a quality rule language.
This requires AD/IESG review which we might pass,
but more likely not. We would also have hard
time defending half-baked document.
3 Trim the current draft so that it does not
expose known problems and then submit it as
Proposed Standard and defend it. I doubt it is
possible because the milestone says "specification
method" not "rules architecture" or something
abstract of that kind. Other opinions?
I would suggest that we go with option #1 and carefully pick the new
deadline based on the todo list you are so eager to jump on :-).
Did I miss any options? Is my understanding of IETF procedures correct
here?
Thank you,
Alex.