On 15-Oct-24 06:29, Loa Andersson wrote:
Brian,
inline plz.
Den 10/10/2024 kl. 21:53, skrev Brian E Carpenter:
[moved from tools-discuss]
On 11-Oct-24 08:06, John C Klensin wrote:
On Thursday, October 10, 2024 13:23 -0500 Robert Sparks
<rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
The practices of directorates continuing to change assignments or
provide comments after last call is something I'll leave to the
IESG to steer. Note, however, that almost all of the directorates
also provide telechat reviews, not just last-call reviews.
(That brings us to an issue that I thought to mention in my earlier
note, decided against it, and may regret mentioning now. If this is
worth pursuing, it should probably be on the IETF list, not here.
At least in principle, there is a difference between (i) Last Call as
a community discussion mechanism whose effect is to inform the IESG
about community consensus and (ii) Last Call as a mechanism to feed
information, opinions, and other advice into the IESG so the ADs can
determine what they think is the right decision for the Internet. If
those directorate/area reviews are given privileged status -- input
into the telechats that ordinary IETF participants don't get, more
flexibility about deadlines, etc. -- then the "treat this like any
other review" boilerplate of most of those reviews becomes a joke or
worse. It would be somewhat different if those really were
directorate or area reviews -- reviews that were written (or
finalized) only after specific discussion about the document within
that area or directorate and that represented consensus in that
group. But they often are not -- they are more often the opinions of
an individual who comes up in rotation or draws a short straw. If
the latter is the case, the community should probably be insisting
that reviews that claim to be (or are treated as) representative of a
group rather than that of the author as an individual be posted
several days before a Last Call ends so that other IETF participants
can comment on whatever is said.
So telling me/us that directorates provide telechat reviews in
addition to or instead of Last Call reviews is a source of concern,
not comfort.
When I was a Gen-ART reviewer it was fairly clear that telechat reviews
had two properties:
1. They were public.
2. They were really supposed to be saying either "All my previous
IETF Last Call comments have been dealt with" or "The following
IETF Last Call comments have not been dealt with: ...".
If they go outside those boundaries, yes, there could be a problem.
Why, consider the situation where an author addresses an "IETF Last Call
comments" introduces a new issue, aren't you allowed to address that?
I meant: if the comments are *not* sent to public lists there is a problem
of non-transparency.
I certainly think that any comment should be considered, even up to the
moment of RFC publication, if there is an important technical error.
Brian
/Loa
(Example: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/
yS5GdXvzqZhMdueyTjQjRlUVjvg,
which was sent to gen-art@xxxxxxxx, ietf-and-github@xxxxxxxx, last-
call@xxxxxxxx, and draft-ietf-git-using-github.all@xxxxxxxx)
Brian
