On 22/04/2021 21:40, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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?
No problem. I wondered why the statement had been made and why now so
compared the text old and new, waited a week for something else to
appear and then asked, and thought I might save others time by posting
what I had found which (also could lead to others pointing out something
I had missed).
I think that 'available to the community' allowed a lot of leeway back
in 2007 and that, with the last call list now in existence, then the
2021 statement is clearer.
Tom Petch
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
.
.
