--On Monday, April 8, 2024 16:16 +0200 Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 8. Apr 2024, at 15:56, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I think Bron covered the more substantive part of this but it seems >> to me that, if our model is that AD review after publication is >> requested followed by IETF Last Call are actually the first points >> at which we expect the IESG and the broader community to carefully >> review the document, this is no such thing as a too-heavy late >> change if those reviews spot a non-trivial deficiency or other >> problem. > > I wasn't talking about this particular document (which indeed > needs to be under IETF change control), but about the stack of > documents derived from other documents which were derived from a > third document describing a thriving ecosystem. Significant > fundamental new work cannot be started locally in one of the > multi-level-derived documents, but must be scoped so it is > beneficial for the entire ecosystem. As I think I said earlier in this thread, I don't have any problem with that but believe that an IETF specification, especially a standards track one, should (must?) be clear about those connections. I hope that does not need any new formalism: a few sentences that explain the relationships, why they dictated certain provisions of the IETF spec, and, preferably, where people should go if they disagree with those external specifications would be more than adequate. best, john -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
