On 2007-01-12 09:54, Pekka Savola wrote:
Well, it seems rather common that IETF LC comments (especially if not
copied to ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org list) are not responded.
Firstly, this is the reason we recently made some minor changes
in the text of the IETF Last Call messages, and why you will see a
related IESG statement in the next few days. We'd rather that
LC comments and follow-ups are on a public list in most cases.
To reduce delay, it
also seems common that IESG telechat is scheduled as soon as possible
after IETF LC closes,
Yes, since the community has asked us to reduce delays...
and document is usually not taken out of the
agenda if comments are received during the LC.
That depends on the AD's judgement whether the comments are serious
enough to definitely require a new I-D. Quite often the AD will prefer
to get any DISCUSSes on the table at the same time, again to reduce
delay. It's highly unlikely that a document would get approved
in its first appearance on the agenda in the presence of
non-editorial LC comments.
Also sometimes the
document gets approved without there being any record (e.g., on IESG
ballots) that some comments had been made but there was no response.
Well, again, it is entirely possible for the IESG to make a decision
in voice discussion that the LC comments in question are editorial
(in which case the draft can be approved subject to the AD requesting
the necessary editorial fixes). And the IESG can also decide in voice
discussion that a LC comment is simply in the "rough" part of rough
consensus. I'd say this is fairly unusual, but I don't have numbers.
I agree that in such a case, it would be at least courteous for the
AD to tell the commenter and the PROTO shepherd this.
Therefore it is not clear to me whether such comment was "addressed"
(I'd call this 'processed') but without public record [e.g., editor or
chair] in essence rejecting the comment (possibly in good faith) or not
received at all (maybe also in good faith, e.g. if WG mailing list
discards non-subscriber posts or the moderator is asleep).
IETF LC comments are supposed to be sent to the IETF list, which has a
public archive (or exceptionally to the iesg).
Maybe we should be clearer on what the expectation for processing IETF
LC comments is. Unless we do, it is not obvious how we could evaluate
whether the procedure has been carried out properly or not.
I think RFC 2026 is fairly clear and the issue is transparency - again,
that is why the IESG now has a preference for IETF LC comments to go to
the IETF list. That's a first step towards better tracking.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf