--On fredag, desember 10, 2004 18:26:08 -0500 John C Klensin
This is purely a procedural question, but my interpretation of
the note below and the general support your suggestion has
gotten is that the document that is actually being last-called
is not draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt, as identified in the Last
Call posted yesterday afternoon, but a hypothetical document,
draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02-bis.txt, which consists of the I-D as
modified by assorted comments and agreements on the IETF mailing
list or perhaps elsewhere.
Is that your intent?
Not really - I believe that -02 is close enough to what the IETF has
consensus on that if we had to live with an unchanged -02 version, that
would be acceptable to the IETF (but not optimal).
As with all Last Calls, the community members have the opportunity for two
kinds of comments:
- To declare "no, we are not part of the consensus", and ask for the
document to be significantly changed if the consensus agrees with the
- To suggest wording improvements, clarifications and procedures for
handling of marginal situations that do not change the main thrust of the
The last class of comments, which also includes IESG comments when the
document comes before the IESG, and adjustments to take those into account,
is quite commonplace in our process - it is extremely common to have one or
more versions of a document emitted between Last Call and final approval.
If that happens relatively quickly, it's rare to reissue the Last Call.
If so, I am at least mildly concerned: normally, we have Last
Call reviews against stable documents, not documents that are
still actively changing, much less virtual documents in which
significant changes are being made out of band and in a way
that is very hard for someone casually participating in the IETF
to track. Do you have a better suggestion? Can we expect a
-03 for final review halfway through the Last Call window, with
the window being restarted if the changes are significant enough?
I believe that we want to do three things to make sure the process is
transparent and apparent to everyone:
- Keep the discussion on the IETF list (sorry, Mike!)
- Use the issue tracker at rt.psg.com actively
- Emit a "rolled up textual changes" version around December 23, which will
hopefully be the same version that the IESG considers for approval on
If we have to make significant changes, we will have to restart the Last
Call and push the establishment of IASA out by the requisite amount of
time. But the reason I think it's appropriate to issue the Last Call now is
that I don't think we have to make really significant changes - all the
open issues I have currently seen on the IETF list is more or less of the
form "I think this can be better expressed as...".
This is, of course, a judgment call, and I'm sure you'll read the document
carefully and alert us if you think we're uncomfortably close to the
boundary between "minor" and "significant".
BTW: Henrik Levkowetz has graciously volunteered to strengthen the editing
team with more capacity to run the issue tracker. Thanks, Henrik!
Ietf mailing list