>>>>> "Vernon" == Vernon Schryver <vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> No, currently this
>> draft is in Ted's hands. It makes no sense for people to
>> withdraw drafts or to make any hasty decisions at all.
Vernon> That's fine, but does suggest some questions:
Vernon> - Is the Last Call over?
The answer to this question is clearly yes. You can see this for
yourself in the ID tracker. What this means is a bit unclear. If
someone brought up a new comment that pointed out a new critical
defect in the specification, the IESG would almost certainly consider
the comment even though it was received after the last call period.
However it is probably not useful to continue existing discussions of
the draft.
Vernon> - If so, was its result "no supporting consensus"?
That's hard to answer or put another way, things don't quite work in
such a way that that question has an easy answer.
Procedurally speaking the responsible AD (Ted in this case) decides
what to do next. He can ask for revisions; he can talk to the
authors; he can try to create a working group; he can tell the authors
he will not sponsor the draft; he can issue a ballot and put the draft
on the IESG agenda. Those options are intended to be a fairly
exaustive list of what an AD could do after any last call and are not
intended to express any opinion about the current document.
So, at some level you will just have to wait to learn Ted's opinion of
the situation; the rest of us are also waiting for the same thing.
Note that there are procedural safeguards. If an AD brings a document
to the IESG that is not ready, other IESG members can object. If the
IESG approves a document that is not ready, the community can appeal
the decision. If an AD proposes a new working group, the community,
IAB and IESG get to review the proposed working group. I hope this
helps you understand the process.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf