Adrian Farrel wrote: > 3. Are notes to the RFC Editor inserted in the I-D tracker? > I certainly haven't seen them there in the past. It's at the end of the "IESG evaluation record". There you'll find a draft of the approval announcement, and that contains Note to RFC editor + IESG note + IANA note (if any), example: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2253 > In any case, we would still like to see why this note to > the RFC Editor is suitable to address the DISCUSS. If the discussion triggered by a DISCUSS in in private mails or on the WG list you won't find it in the tracker. But you see *_when_* it was cleared, so if there's a new I-D between the DISCUSS and the updated ballot it's probably related. BTW, the new "last call" boilerplate is better, thanks to (wild guess) Lisa. Among other improvements it has a link to the draft tracker. >> But the WG Chair is the PROTO shepherd and does have >> responsibility. > The PROTO shepherd has this responsiblity and may be the > WG chair? Yes, they're supposed to watch the tracker and report issues to the WG and/or authors. Of course the responsible AD is free to shepherd the procedure directly. The shepherds also check that RFC editor + authors don't introduce substantial modifications in AUTH48 (the last weak point in this maze - but IMO the most critical point is the "Note to RFC editor", apparently we're supposed to check this step and to cry foul a.s.a.p., ideally before the approval is published). > How about allowing PROTO shepherds to post to the I-D tracker? Can't they ? At least the questionnaire (modulo 1F) is posted. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf