C. M. Heard wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Scott Bradner wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
would it be reasonable to just say that we are going to
always last call IETF review documents? Personally I'd
approve of this option unless people think it is too
works for me (assuming that you include non-IETF documents
when you say "IETF review documents")
In which case, what you last call is not the document itself but
what the IETF intends to say about it, and do about the related
That being so, I think we now have running code proof that this
is what the community wants.
To make sure I understand what is being said here, is the proposal
that a Last Call would be required for the policies labelled "IETF
Review" and "IESG Approval"? That seems reasonable to me. And if a
last call requirement is added, I don't think there is a reaon any
more to change the name to "IETF Review" from "IETF Consensus".
That's what I meant.
I would be less supportive of a proposal to require Last Call in
connection with the "Specification Required" and "RFC Required"
assignment policies. That seems too heavyweight. However, I do
think that it would be reasonable to require that the supporting
documents be reviewed by a designated expert to verify that it they
are sufficiently clear to make possible interoperability between
I agree, as long as there is enough of a public record that
anybody can find out the history.
Ietf mailing list