What John says below is good sense and IMHO should put the discussion of this subject to bed (ignoring subthreads where people have gone off on to other topics without changing the subject field).
The phrase "Last Call" has built-in semantics. If something is sufficiently straightforward that the overhead of creating a WG is pointless, and if the last call message carries the sort of text John suggests, I don't see an issue.
Brian
John C Klensin wrote:
Hi.
In the hope of making part of this discussion concrete and moving it a step forward, rather than (or in addition to) debates about philosophy, let me make two suggestions:
(1) Last Calls for independent submission and similar standards-track (and BCP) documents should include, explicitly,
(i) An indication that it is not a WG submission. (ii) An explicit request for comments on whether the material is appropriate for IETF standardization (independent of the correctness/ appropriateness of its technical content), as well as (iii) The usual request for comment on technical content.
(2) Any explanations of why the document is relevant, what
problems it solves, what individuals or groups are and are not
supporting it, etc., that might help the community reach a
conclusion about the second point above should be either part of
the document itself or part of a supplemental informational
document that is included in the Last Call.
These suggestions are independent of discussions about defaults, etc., and would, I think, be helpful for all non-WG submissions, even though they will obviously be more important for some than for others. And, since the IESG decides what is Last Called and what is not, and about the content of Last Call announcements, I think it is something you can just do if you or the community think it would be helpful.
john
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf