--On Saturday, 11 December, 2004 12:58 +0100 avri@xxxxxxx wrote: > Hi, > > I agree it does seem procedurally a little skewed. > > But in thinking about it, I feel that this may not end up a > problem as long as one thing happens. That is, if -03 (the > 02-bis you refer to) is different in any substantive manner, > i.e. other then editorial, it will need to go through a second > call before the IESG can decide on it. I.e,, as you said, as > soon as an -03 that is substantially different comes out, the > LC clock restarts. > > I think getting this into wider community review, i.e. due to > LC, is a good thing to do at this point, even while some of > us, myself included, continue to argue on particular points we > are uncomfortable with. I think we generally agree. I'm not opposed to doing it this way and can see some advantages; I just think it is important that we be extremely clear about what we are doing and that the final result really reflects community consensus. Seeing a note from Harald that seemed to explain why were weren't quite ready for a Last Call and then a Last Call announcement is, to me, the sort of thing that calls for comment. While I appreciate the importance of the planned schedule, I think that, for many reasons, the perceived fairness of the process -- and all of the IETF integrity issues that rest on it-- requires that intermediate document, requires an interpretation of whether it contains any substantive changes that resolves any uncertainty in favor of an extended Last Call, and requires the IESG not apply any post-last-call "fixes" to the document (or at least not any that any reasonable person could consider substantive) without reopening the last call process. As long as we are very careful about those things, and we are clear about how the decisions are being made, I have no procedural problems. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf