| Joel,
Thanks; I forgot about this step largely because most of my drafts have been either in the AD’s master WG or a WG the AD was chairing anyway.
However, I’m not sure it’s a formal step (I can’t seem to find it listed as such anywhere). AFAICT, it’s just a courtesy vs IETF LC or IESG review.
Joe
— Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
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
|
