Schedule data from Crete, updated since f2f by the stuff in brackets, "[...]".

Last update: 2003-07-21 (3rd)

(Previous version: 2003-07-14).

activity/milestone OpsGL SpecGL TestGL
(a) current public WD 5th 4th 2nd
(b) LC issues done 100% 90-95% [100% now] n/a
(c) Revised text GL 75% [95% now] 60-70% [???] --
(d) Revised text ET 0% [75% now] 0% [???] 0% (need ET before LC)
(e) Review revised text [R-to-C] [in progress] [pending] --
(f) Publish WD (/TR/ or final WG-only?) [1st August] ??? (Day3-am minutes only
refer to WG draft)
WG-only, mid-August;
3rdPWD mid-Sept
(g) Draft DoC (Disposition of Comments) [30th July] ??
(h) Send DoC to commenters (start 2-week default "accept") [1st August] ??
(i) End window for DoC replies; begin 1-week of negotiating any negatives. [15th August]
(j) finish DoC negotiation; finish draft CR text; request CR Director call. [22nd August] n/a
(k) Director CR-permission call [5th Sept] Last Call (not CR) November.

Most of the Crete f2f data is taken from the Day1-pm raw minutes.


  1. This assumes that OpsGL will forge ahead as fast as possible and SpecGL will lag somewhat behind (2-4 weeks?).
  2. For OpsGL, there will be a single DoC document, but with comments sorted by name of commenter. Similarly for SpecGL.
  3. Basically, CR text should look a lot like the WD of #f, and its preparation can begin in parallel around #f/g/h (by editor).
  4. CR-request message preparation can begin also around #f/g/h and proceed in parallel (by a chair/team/staff).
  5. Zero slack in schedule -- moderate-high risk of missing schedule if any significant disruptions (like difficult negative replies to DoC.)