Lisa Dusseault wrote:
On Sep 8, 2008, at 5:06 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Please reserve Last Calls for situations in which community
input or demonstrations of community consensus are actually
needed.
Perhaps an announcement specifically calling out the approval of the
errata would have been better. I was trying to make sure there was a
public record of the intent or fait accompli of obsoleting RFC1806 --
since errata don't normally have IETF-announce postings associated.
FWIW, I think it's better to err on the side of too many last calls.
If we can make the simple assertion that anything which changes the
status of a standards-track document requires a last call, at least that
class is addressed - this was apparently about altering the status of an
Experimental document, so it's still a judgment call.
Perhaps the feedback can be seen as encouraging writing up an IESG
statement/ guideline saying "we send out a Last Call when...."?
(that guideline should then also include "..... and when we think we
need one".... don't eliminate the ability to use judgment....)
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf