On May 20, 2013, at 8:56 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
However, if
(i) the expert review consists largely of making sure
that the template contains the right information and the
ducks are not obviously out of line rather than a
design/architectural review with at least meaningful
potential for community review of the request, and
(ii) the response to a design/architectural concern
raised during IETF LC is essentially "too late, code
points already allocated", and
(iii) "Proposed Standard" still does not imply
"recommended" and the alternative to approving the I-D
for that category is non-publication,
then I would like to understand, as a procedural matter, what
the IETF Last Call is about.
Whether or not the document clear enough for an implementor to create
interoperable software from. That's what the IETF is supposed to be doing, yes?
Certainly it is not for editorial
review; that is the RFC Editor's job and there are, IMO, no
glaring editorial problems.
Correct.
If the RRTYPEs have been allocated
and can't be un-allocated and this is in use, then there is
nothing to propose as an individual submission for
standardization: an informational document to inform the
community about what this is about would be both appropriate and
sufficient.
...only if the authors don't care about interoperability between
implementations.
An author asking for IETF-wide review seems like something that should be
encouraged, not pecked to death.
--Paul Hoffman