> > This was my judgment as responsible AD: we normally do 4-week > > last calls for individual requests and two-week last calls for > > documents coming from working groups. Why would this be > > different? > > > > I do see that RFC 6410 specifies four weeks. If the community > > thinks that's necessary here, I will happily extend the last > > call and let my successor handle the status change from there. > > Speaking personally, I think the issues here are subtle ones > involving process and precisely what the documents (and any > status-notices) have to say and not, e.g., whether the > fundamental characteristics of RDAP are appropriate for > advancement. I count both my concerns and SM's as just that > sort of subtle issue. Given that you --and, especially since > you are stepping down-- I trust the rest of the IESG has noticed > the RFC 6410 requirement so that we will not, I hope, have this > issue in the future, and in the interest with leaving your > successor with a minimum of loose ends that can be easily > resolved, let me suggest a compromise: > > (i) for now, leave things as they are unless someone stands up > and says "I see issues here that others don't seem to and need > more time". > > (ii) If there are a flurry of comments around 23 or 24 February, > ask, using both this list and IETF-Announce for anyone who needs > more time to immediately speak up. > > If you don't get either, wrap this up. I like that approach, and thanks for suggesting it. Let's proceed with that plan and see where it goes. Barry -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
