Just a minor followup here...
From a Brian-o-gram:
IETF LC comments are supposed to be sent to the IETF list, which has a
public archive (or exceptionally to the iesg).
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.
I think RFC 2026 is fairly clear and the issue is transparency - again,
that is why the IESG now has a preference for IETF LC comments to go to
the IETF list. That's a first step towards better tracking.
Until a couple of months ago, I didn't think that IESG had a preference
about where I sent Last Call comments (IESG list or IETF list), so I was
sending comments to the IESG list, for two reasons: (1) I was confused, and
(2) I preferred to send comments the list where they did not tend to set off
long e-mail discussions with other Last Call commenters.
In discussions with ADs during IETF 67, it became obvious to me that (1) the
IESG actually DID have a preference for comments on the IETF list, although
you couldn't tell it from the old-style Last Call text, and (2) this was the
result of a desire for transparency, so likely a good thing.
I haven't seen an announcement of the new-style Last Call text, only its use
on specific recent last calls (I saw it on 12/22 Last Calls, so it's pretty
recent). If you have also seen so many Last Call e-mails that you no longer
actually read them, you might not have noticed the new text that Brian's
referring to.
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf