Hi Russ,
If you have a strong need to have this discussed face-to-face,
then using the defer to give us time at the retreat certainly makes sense.
The piece that is missing for me seems to fit here:
I am getting quite frustrated about this issue. When everyone agrees
on the long-term solution, I am reluctant to let alternative short-term
solutions achieve RFC status that will cause bloat in clients,
interoperability hassles for users, or, more likely, both.
Since this draft is the long term solution, I'm not sure I
understand how it achieving RFC status relates
to the alternative short-term solutions reaching RFC. If its
_omission_ of a specific hook (like ;binary)
is perceived as precluding the short term solution, then we may be able
to clarify that in the IESG note
as well. Text like:
Readers will note that this document does not specify $FOO,
which was originally part of
RFC XXXX. The LDAP community is currently considering the use
of $FOO, and the IESG
expects a separate document to describe whether $FOO will be
deprecated or how its
usage within the LDAP community has changed.
If the resolution looked fast or easy, I would say wait, but
Bert is already waiting on this
draft and I'm not sure "good, fast, or cheap" will be forthcoming.
If this is all much more complicated, then we can discuss it at
the retreat.
Sorry for your frustration, and I hope my own ignorance of the
history here isn't adding to it,
regards,
Ted Hardie