Hi.
In the hope of making part of this discussion concrete and
moving it a step forward, rather than (or in addition to)
debates about philosophy, let me make two suggestions:
(1) Last Calls for independent submission and similar
standards-track (and BCP) documents should include, explicitly,
(i) An indication that it is not a WG submission.
(ii) An explicit request for comments on whether the
material is appropriate for IETF standardization
(independent of the correctness/ appropriateness of its
technical content), as well as
(iii) The usual request for comment on technical content.
(2) Any explanations of why the document is relevant, what
problems it solves, what individuals or groups are and are not
supporting it, etc., that might help the community reach a
conclusion about the second point above should be either part of
the document itself or part of a supplemental informational
document that is included in the Last Call.
These suggestions are independent of discussions about defaults,
etc., and would, I think, be helpful for all non-WG submissions,
even though they will obviously be more important for some than
for others. And, since the IESG decides what is Last Called
and what is not, and about the content of Last Call
announcements, I think it is something you can just do if you or
the community think it would be helpful.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf