At 04:43 26-06-2008, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
But, surely the WG consensus counts as part of the overall IETF
consensus process, doesn't it? Please see the example in my
response to Jari. The shepherding AD (or at least the document
shepherd) has an idea of the WG consensus as well as the IETF
consensus. We cannot simply weigh the latest opinions more than all
the discussions that have happened as part of the WG consensus.
The document may be a product of WG consensus. It still has to pass
through the community and the IESG to be published as an IETF document.
The WG knows about the internals of the document and generally have a
focused view. The last call allows a wider range of input and to
gauge the impact the proposal may have in other areas. It is not
about weighing the latest opinions more. The author/shepard can
always post an explanation. The participants in the WG should be
aware that there will be an IETF-wide last call. You cannot blame
the process if they choose to remain silent instead of taking part in
the last call. Note that letter-writing campaigns in a last call
have been proven to be ineffective.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf