Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 5:06 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
>> Please reserve Last Calls for situations in which community
>> input or demonstrations of community consensus are actually
>> needed.
>>
>
> Perhaps an announcement specifically calling out the approval of the
> errata would have been better. I was trying to make sure there was a
> public record of the intent or fait accompli of obsoleting RFC1806 --
> since errata don't normally have IETF-announce postings associated.
>
FWIW, I think it's better to err on the side of too many last calls.
If we can make the simple assertion that anything which changes the
status of a standards-track document requires a last call, at least that
class is addressed - this was apparently about altering the status of an
Experimental document, so it's still a judgment call.
Perhaps the feedback can be seen as encouraging writing up an IESG
statement/ guideline saying "we send out a Last Call when...."?
(that guideline should then also include "..... and when we think we
need one".... don't eliminate the ability to use judgment....)
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf