Hi Don,
thanks for the feedback.
link-format has been essentially stable for the better part of a year now (as
the result of dispatching of the comments on the first WGLC in -03, IIRC). It
has been used in a number of informal interop events, and the feedback always
was that it did its job and there were few, if any, problems.
Yes, there have been many minor revisions since, mostly on the editorial front.
There is a difference between a spec implementers close to the WG process can
use and the one you want in the permanent record for everybody to use.
We also needed to get the ABNF right to cover some fringe cases.
When these small fixes were completed in response to the results of the second
WGLC, I had briefly planned to do a third WGLC, but then I didn't really see a
reason any more to do so. (BTW, I'm not aware of a concept of "final WGLC",
and I have never qualified a WGLC as such. The "L" in WGLC already means
"last", as in final.)
As a general observation on the IETF WG process: the increase of the number on
the document does not mean there is substantial change. In particular during
what I'm referring to as the "ID-nits phase" when a document is getting dressed
up for going forward, it may take a couple of small editorial rounds to get all
the various classes of things crossed and dotted.
Please do avail yourself of the tools pages to review the diffs to see whether
there still is substantial change or just Brownian motion. On a more general
note, WGLC is not the only time WG members need to look at a document.
Putting WGLCs on top of distracting events like IETF meetings or important
holidays is something most WG chairs actively try to avoid. I already put in
an allowance for the November IETF in the second WGLC, and I'm sorry if I
forgot about adding more allowance for US Thanksgiving Day. (There has been
ample time since to submit any late feedback.)
All that said, we're in luck and have an IETF last call that follows the WG
consensus process in the procedures, and this is a great opportunity for
additional input.
I'm certainly looking forward to yours.
Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf