Re: Agenda:draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema-mr-00.txt

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

hardie@qualcomm.com writes:

> The new tool will not allow me to add this to the agenda, apparently
> because no draft of this name has been last called.  As the notes
> make clear, this draft is *a* successor draft to 
> draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema,
> which was last called and considered by the IESG.  After reading the IESG
> notes, the author believed that splitting the draft into two parts which
> went forward at different paces was the correct thing to do.  I have confirmed
> that this is a proper subset of the original document, and, after discussion,
> I believe that it does not require a second four week last call.

I've often wondered when we'd run into this process technicality. Same
could be said for an RFC getting Last Called, comments result in an
-00 ID being published. Does it need a LC too?

I'm fine with your explanation, but I think it would be good to make
it clear in the document approval text that this ID was derived from
the other one in case anyone is surprised. (Maybe you're already
planning this.)

Thomas