On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 09:31:29AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-01-12 09:54, Pekka Savola wrote:
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.
As an AD, I do expect other ADs to remove a document from the agenda
if the Last Call comments are substantial and don't have a completely
obvious resolution and/or really fall into the "rough" part of the
consensus as determined by the working group chair and AD.
Basically, that means I don't have a problem with documents on the
agenda that have known minor editorial issues or issues that have a
simple and straightforward solution that were brought up during the
Last Call.
Obviously, this involves a judgement call and I am happy to trust my
colleagues to make such decision. As with all human decision making,
we sometimes don't agree and have a discussion whether a document
should really be on the agenda or not. In addition, there is the
factor of time differences, vacation time and otherwise that sometimes
will result in a situation that the document is only removed at quite
a late stage.
Personnally, I rather have us occasionally fix a problem because we
are a bit too aggressive in getting a document on the agenda than
being so careful that all documents end up incurring more delays
during the IESG review phase.
David Kessens
---
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf