--On Saturday, 11 December, 2004 12:58 +0100 avri(_at_)psg(_dot_)com wrote:
Hi,
I agree it does seem procedurally a little skewed.
But in thinking about it, I feel that this may not end up a
problem as long as one thing happens. That is, if -03 (the
02-bis you refer to) is different in any substantive manner,
i.e. other then editorial, it will need to go through a second
call before the IESG can decide on it. I.e,, as you said, as
soon as an -03 that is substantially different comes out, the
LC clock restarts.
I think getting this into wider community review, i.e. due to
LC, is a good thing to do at this point, even while some of
us, myself included, continue to argue on particular points we
are uncomfortable with.
I think we generally agree. I'm not opposed to doing it this
way and can see some advantages; I just think it is important
that we be extremely clear about what we are doing and that the
final result really reflects community consensus. Seeing a
note from Harald that seemed to explain why were weren't quite
ready for a Last Call and then a Last Call announcement is, to
me, the sort of thing that calls for comment.
While I appreciate the importance of the planned schedule, I
think that, for many reasons, the perceived fairness of the
process -- and all of the IETF integrity issues that rest on
it-- requires that intermediate document, requires an
interpretation of whether it contains any substantive changes
that resolves any uncertainty in favor of an extended Last Call,
and requires the IESG not apply any post-last-call "fixes" to
the document (or at least not any that any reasonable person
could consider substantive) without reopening the last call
process.
As long as we are very careful about those things, and we are
clear about how the decisions are being made, I have no
procedural problems.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf