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

[RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>]

Ted,

The RFC Editor agrees with your proposed course of action.  Our only
request is that the IESG Secretariat send an official announcement
to the RFC Editor stating that this is the IESG consensus.  

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Sandy


On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 12:14:30PM -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
> 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
> >
> >	
> >