--On Monday, July 20, 2009 10:32 +0200 Henk Uijterwaal
<henk(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net> wrote:
John,
* There is, as far as I know, no precedent for an
IETF-related body to announce a public comment period on a
document, make a series of "interim decisions" and announce
them five days before the end of that period, and then
leave the comment period termination date in place rather
than restarting the review on the revised document.
For a purely practical point of view: When I'm asked to
review a document,
and before I start, the author realizes that a section needs
to be modified, then this is something I'd like to know. That
saves me the time to review
something that is known to be changed anyway.
Sure. And the period of time you get to make the review starts
when you get the changed version. That is why I believe this
review period is, in practice, only five days long.
In WGLCs, this happens all the time. Comments are made,
authors acknowledge them and promise a new version.
Sure. But, in a WG situation, everyone is assumed to be
familiar with the documents and their development and the whole
process is one of ongoing development and discussion _by the WG_
until the document is ready to send to the IESG. In that
regard, I don't believe that we have any specific, consensus,
rules about WG Last Calls -- they are simply an informal tool
available for use by the Chair. When we had a document off for
review by the community --other than the developing body-- we
allow significant time, expect the document to be stable during
that review period, and, if it is necessary to change the
document after the review starts, we restart the review.
So I suggest that your analogy is reasonable and, for the TLP,
applies for reviews among the Trustees. It does not shed any
useful light on Last Call-like reviews by the community.
regards,
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf