At 08.10 +0200 01-01-08, Dan Romascanu wrote:
Thanks. Your explanation is detailed and clear. The original message should
have probably said 'the IESG is requesting input from the IETF community'
instead of 'this has been reviewed in the IETF'. The way the message was
written mis-lead me.
For documents to reach this state, i.e. last call, the Area Director
which requests formally the last call must be convinced that the
document have a chance of passing both last call and IESG review.
Otherwise, the AD normally say no at an earlier stage.
The person which goes to the AD with an individual document normally
tells the AD what mailing list (or equivalent) the document have been
discussed on. The AD sometimes looks in the archives for that mailing
list to see if there have been any discussions. Basically, the AD can
use whatever procedures he want to make up his mind that "this
document is good enough to take some time from me and the IESG".
In the case of a wg document it is much easier, as it is the wg chair
which goes to the AD and tells the AD that there is working group
consensus for the document to be moved to some RFC status.
I.e. yes, you are right, the discussions doesn't have to have been
formal, and not even in the IETF (sometimes in other bodies like ITU).
What has made the AD request a last call is something which only
he/she knows, so I can not help with this specific document as it is
not on my table.
Important is though that the IETF community _DO_ review the documents
during last call and send in comments. I can say that I personally
for Applications Area document see extremely few comments coming in
during last call. Even if you think the document is good, I want to
know that. If you think there are problems with a document, the more
important that you say so! This last call period is
_THE_POINT_OF_NO_RETURN_ for comments, and it is not until the date
listed in the last call announcement you can no longer send in
comments.
Please, more review from people in the IETF make our job in the IESG
easier, and we will be able to take care of your documents faster.
So, Dan, if you _have_ issues with the document, let the IESG know.
Regards, Patrik
Regards,
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: paf(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com [SMTP:paf(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Mon January 08 2001 8:01
To: Dan Romascanu; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: FW: Last Call: EtherIP: Tunneling Ethernet Frames in IP
Datagrams to Proposed Standard
At 07.33 +0200 01-01-08, Dan Romascanu wrote:
>Can somebody please clarify the IESG announcement below? What means the
>phrase 'This has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF
>Working Group. Is the IESG review available, if there has been some
>discussions, where are they archived?
The statement means that the IESG is going to have a look at the
document, but wants input to that discussion from the IETF community.
People can send input until Feb 5 (hmmm...3 days ago :-).
After this time period has expired, the Area Director in charge for
this document (the one which received the request from the working
group or individual, as in this case) will do a review, suggest a
descision for the IESG. The descision is what you see as the
announcement later in the process, and in the minutes from the IESG
meetings.
IESG meets every second week, but not always the AD in charge have
time between the last call closes (Feb 5) and the next meeting (on
thursday) to do the review, and sometimes ADs (which are only humans,
belive it or not) have lost documents. Yes, I know I am personally
guilty for some of them.
The important thing to remember for all of you is that after you have
given the document to an AD for IESG review, the AD is responsible
for the progress of the document until you hear otherwise. I.e. ask
the AD what the status is. You can also see status on
> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/status.html.
If the AD or IESG have issues with the document, the editor (and in
many cases the wg chair and the wg mailing list will be noticed. You
don't have to do anything else than poke the AD now and then.
Regards, Patrik
Co-Area Director, Applications Area
>Thanks
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: The IESG [SMTP:iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
>> Sent: Fri January 05 2001 21:12
>> To: IETF-Announce;
@loki(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org(_at_)rhe(_dot_)post(_dot_)avaya(_dot_)com
>> Subject: Last Call: EtherIP: Tunneling Ethernet Frames in IP
>> Datagrams to Proposed Standard
>>
>>
>> The IESG has received a request to consider EtherIP: Tunneling
Ethernet
>> Frames in IP Datagrams <draft-housley-etherip-00.txt> as a Proposed
>> Standard. This has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product
of
>> an IETF Working Group.
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the
>> iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org or ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by
February 5, 2001.
>>
>> Files can be obtained via
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-housley-etherip-00.txt
>>
--
Patrik Fältström <paf(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> Internet Engineering Task
Force
Area Director, Applications Area http://www.ietf.org
Phone: (Stockholm) +46-8-4494212 (San Jose) +1-408-525-0940
PGP: 2DFC AAF6 16F0 F276 7843 2DC1 BC79 51D9 7D25 B8DC
--
Patrik Fältström <paf(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> Cisco
Systems
Consulting Engineer Office of the CSO
Phone: (Stockholm) +46-8-4494212 (San Jose) +1-408-525-0940
PGP: 2DFC AAF6 16F0 F276 7843 2DC1 BC79 51D9 7D25 B8DC