[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Fwd: draft-ietf-apex-presence-06.txt

Hi again,
	One of my colleagues indicated that this might be
misread as "let 'er rip" message, rather than a "what's
your view" message.  If that wasn't clear; sorry.  I'm
trying to ask you if this way forward makes sense from
the rfc editor's perspective.  Please let the IESG
know your thoughts when you have a chance,
				best regards,
						Ted Hardie


Begin forwarded message:


From: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue Apr 1, 2003  11:45:49 AM US/Pacific
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: draft-ietf-apex-presence-06.txt

Hi rfc-editor folk,
	You currently have draft-ietf-apex-presence in your queue,
in a REF state.  At the time it was held, there was an implicit
reference to the CPIM work due from IMPP, as the APEX working
group had been chartered to do a CPIM-compliant instant
messaging and presence service.  The draft itself was written
with no normative references to the CPIM documents.
	The IESG has come to agreement that APEX will
not meet its chartered requirement, as there is no work which
will create a CPIM-compliant instant messaging service.
We will be closing the working group as a result.  We would
also like to shift this document from a target of proposed
standard to a target of Experimental, as a way of retaining
the engineering knowledge it expresses without indicating
that it is intended to be on the standards track or compliant
with the IETF's IM and Presence work.
	We believe that it can go forward as Experimental
without further changes, since the references to CPIM were
inherent in its context rather than expressed in its references.
Please let us know if this makes sense to you,
					best regards,
						Ted Hardie