Tom, > Last, comments from organised review teams should be sent to the last > call list as opposed to being made available to the community. The last call list *is* available to the community, so this is just being more specific about what "available to the community" means. Is that a problem? Regards Brian On 23-Apr-21 04:16, tom petch wrote: > I finally got around to finding the previous IESG statement on this, > from 14 years ago, to see what has changed. AFAICT there are three changes. > First a reference to BCP9. > Second a request to make it clear which I-D is being commented on. > Last, comments from organised review teams should be sent to the last > call list as opposed to being made available to the community. > I am left wondering why, and why now. There was a discussion about the > usefulness of the last call list recently but that does not seem > relevant. As ever, this comes from the IESG so will have one or more > humans behind it, as opposed to being created by AI, but I do wonder who > and why. > > Tom Petch > > > > On 16/04/2021 18:51, IESG Secretary wrote: >> Last Call Guidance to the Community, 16 April 2021 >> >> Online: <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/last-call-guidance/> >> >> In line with BCP 9, the IESG issues IETF Last Calls for all documents in the >> IETF Stream. >> >> In normal cases, since this is the final stage of open community review, the >> IESG prefers that comments on Last Calls be sent to the last-call@xxxxxxxx list. >> Authors, WG Chairs and the responsible Area Director are presumed to see all >> such messages, but they may be copied if the person sending a comment so desires >> (e.g., by copying the draft-name-xyz.all@xxxxxxxx email alias.) >> >> It is appropriate to send purely editorial or typographical comments only to the >> authors, WG Chairs, and the responsible Area Director. >> >> If substantive discussion of a technical comment is needed, then it is often >> appropriate to move that discussion to the WG list, once the comment has been >> made on the last-call list. (For non-WG drafts, it should normally stay on the >> last-call list.) >> >> In exceptional cases, a comment may be sent only to iesg@xxxxxxxx. However, the >> IESG will normally need to discuss these comments with the authors, the WG >> Chairs, and possibly with the WG as a whole. Once a comment is sent to the IESG, >> it becomes a contribution to the IETF standards process, even if anonymity is >> requested. >> >> Please ensure that it is clear which draft is the subject of a comment. From a >> practical point of view, Last Call comments should preserve the beginning of the >> original subject header, up to at least the end of the draft name. For example, >> a comment on: >> >> Last Call: draft-ietf-pigeon-post-02.txt (Avian Mail Transfer Protocol) >> to Proposed Standard >> >> could carry a subject such as >> >> Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-pigeon-post-02.txt - what about avian flu >> risk? >> >> This is to ensure that Last Call comments can be automatically sorted. >> >> There are some organized review teams in the IETF (e.g., Gen-ART and the >> Security Directorate). Reviews from such teams should be sent to the >> last-call@xxxxxxxx list in addition to the review team itself, if they are >> intended as Last Call comments. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IETF-Announce mailing list >> IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >> . >> > >
