On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 09:31:29AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > On 2007-01-12 09:54, Pekka Savola wrote: > > That depends on the AD's judgement whether the comments are serious > enough to definitely require a new I-D. Quite often the AD will prefer > to get any DISCUSSes on the table at the same time, again to reduce > delay. It's highly unlikely that a document would get approved > in its first appearance on the agenda in the presence of > non-editorial LC comments. As an AD, I do expect other ADs to remove a document from the agenda if the Last Call comments are substantial and don't have a completely obvious resolution and/or really fall into the "rough" part of the consensus as determined by the working group chair and AD. Basically, that means I don't have a problem with documents on the agenda that have known minor editorial issues or issues that have a simple and straightforward solution that were brought up during the Last Call. Obviously, this involves a judgement call and I am happy to trust my colleagues to make such decision. As with all human decision making, we sometimes don't agree and have a discussion whether a document should really be on the agenda or not. In addition, there is the factor of time differences, vacation time and otherwise that sometimes will result in a situation that the document is only removed at quite a late stage. Personnally, I rather have us occasionally fix a problem because we are a bit too aggressive in getting a document on the agenda than being so careful that all documents end up incurring more delays during the IESG review phase. David Kessens --- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf