Joe, in all cases I know of when the WG chairs push the button to send a
document to the IESG, what this causes is a review by the responsible
AD. In many cases, the AD has questions he would like answers to before
he pushes the button causing the IETF LC. Given that this is the
typical case, I would expect to include it.
Yours,
Joel
On 2/28/2022 11:21 AM, touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi, Joel,
On Feb 27, 2022, at 10:13 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I would have thought that the primary thread that would be useful to
be shown for a draft is:
Individual draft
discussion and improvement
WG adoption (no details, just that it usually occurs)
discussion and improvement
WG Last Call w/ discussion
AD Review w/ discussion
IETF Last Call w/ discussion
IESG Approval w/ discussion
editing
Publication
What’s the difference between AD review and the IESG step (isn’t that
Review with discussion)?
I.e, why not:
Individual draft
discussion and improvement
WG adoption (no details, just that it usually occurs)
discussion and improvement
WG Last Call w/ discussion
*// remove: //* AD Review w/ discussion
IETF Last Call w/ discussion
IESG *//Review, changed from: Approval // *w/ discussion
editing
Publication
With some notation somewhere that advancement along that sequence is
not guaranteed.
As a flowchart, it’s not just that things can fail to advance, but at
any point a doc can also be abandoned (i.e., exit the process).
But those steps are often easier to indicate as a note, rather than arcs
everywhere.
Joe
