Jeff, you wrote a good note. I'll use this as an opportunity to
expand on one topic a bit:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:49:33 PM +0000 Dave Crocker
<dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
C. PROCEDURAL BREAKAGE
-----------------------
> * IETF process related to document advancement was not carried out;
> e.g., there are unresolved and substantive Last Call comments which the
> document does not address...
IMHO, this particular situation is more than just "procedural breakage". If a
document reaches this point with outstanding last call comments, then there
is a more basic failure. Such a document should not have reached the point
where a DISCUSS is required to keep it from progressing long enough for the
comment to be addressed.
Well, it seems rather common that IETF LC comments (especially if not
copied to ietf@xxxxxxxx list) are not responded. To reduce delay, it
also seems common that IESG telechat is scheduled as soon as possible
after IETF LC closes, and document is usually not taken out of the
agenda if comments are received during the LC. Also sometimes the
document gets approved without there being any record (e.g., on IESG
ballots) that some comments had been made but there was no response.
Therefore it is not clear to me whether such comment was "addressed"
(I'd call this 'processed') but without public record [e.g., editor or
chair] in essence rejecting the comment (possibly in good faith) or
not received at all (maybe also in good faith, e.g. if WG mailing list
discards non-subscriber posts or the moderator is asleep).
Maybe we should be clearer on what the expectation for processing IETF
LC comments is. Unless we do, it is not obvious how we could evaluate
whether the procedure has been carried out properly or not.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf