--On Sunday, 11 December, 2005 23:59 +0100 Frank Ellermann
<nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>>> Some folks including me were surprised that there's no
>>> "IETF last call" for experimental RFCs, unless they are
>>> the product of an IETF WG (4.2.3).
>
>> That's actually not true. The responsible AD can issue
>> a last call for an experimental draft.
>
> Where do I miss that provision in 2026, is it something
> covered by chapter 9 (variance procedure) ?
>
> Checking the 2026 updates I skipped 3667/3668/3978/3979.
>
> Do 3.4 / 3.5 in 3912 address this "for the case where an
> IETF protocol is proposed to be changed or extended in an
> unanticipated way that may be harmful to the normal usage
> of the protocol, but where the protocol documents do not
> explicitly say that this type of extension requires IETF
> review" ?
>
> OTOH 3.4 / 3.5 don't say "MAY start a last call", they're
> about attempts to bypass a required "last call", or for
> the quoted case.
Frank,
2026 basically discusses the cases where Last Calls are
required, as one would expect. But, by long-standing precedent
and good sense, the IESG is permitted to Last Call anything they
like on which they might need to make a decision in order to get
a better sense of the consensus or preferences of the community.
Certainly one would not want to argue against that.
I think that, if an extensive enough search were done, one would
find occasional Last Calls for Experimental documents,
Informational ones, procedural changes or decisions that don't
lead to RFCs such as creation or deletion of areas, and possibly
even things like meeting scheduling.
The absence of a requirement for a Last Call on Experimental (or
Informational) does suggest that one would have a lot of trouble
appealing a decision on the grounds that the relevant AD didn't
ask for a Last Call first. But that doesn't seem to be at issue
here.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf