[ietf-nntp] RE: How to organize the base NNTP draft

[Scott Hollenbeck]

OK, I just wrapped up a conversation with Steve Bellovin re: the outstanding
security-related comments for draft-ietf-nntpext-base-22.  He's OK with the
idea of a document split as long as the base document includes a normative
reference to an extensions document description of the needed security
services.

However, the way the split is approached _might_ introduce a conflict with
the WG's charter, which says:

"2. Include in the same document some reasonable group of existing
  commonly used extensions forming a new base functionality for NNTP."

and

"3. Upon completion of the RFC977 successor document, and presuming that
  proposals for extensions to the NNTP protocol have been submitted
  for consideration by IESG, the working group may be asked by the
  IESG Applications Area Directors to review one or more extensions  
  for NNTP."

So, the base document is supposed to incorporate some commonly used
extensions.  What makes sense to stay in the base document?  I can see the
security extensions being in a second document per item #3.  We can then try
to expedite review and approval of the second document so that the first
doesn't get blocked in the RFC Editor's queue for longer than it needs to be
there.

Anyway, we have a way forward with the IESG.  What's the best way to deal
with the extensions while staying within the charter?

-Scott-