Re: Fw: WG Review: Provisioning Registry Protocol (provreg)

[Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>]

At 6:20 PM -0500 2/3/01, Dave Crocker wrote:
>What changed?

Right now I am basically waiting for feedback from the IESG.  I see the
point of having documents by name and I see the point of not having the
documents by name.  I don't know if the IESG would rather us be starting
from documents existing prior to the WG formation, or would rather us have
a charter indicating a clean slate.  In either case, I have a charter
written.

In my mail on the topic of the charter and meeting schedule, I am trying to
lay out the possibilities.  There has been no other proposal and I know of
no other proposal.  I don't expect there to be another proposal.  The
urgency for a quickly defined protocol has always been there, has been
discussed ad infinitum, and is still recognized.  There is no reason to
think anyone wants to draw out the process.

I am doing the best I can to make sure we don't jump the gun on the
process, fail to invite as much comment on this protocol as is needed, and
yet still get a timely specification done within the IETF.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: lewis@tislabs.com

Dilbert is an optimist.

Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.