Sam Hartman wrote:
> It seems quite clear to me that RFC 2418 does not apply at all to the
output of an RG.
Sam,
I've looked around and the WG Guidelines doc happens to be the only place I
could find that defines the purpose of a Last Call. The mere fact that the title
of document is about "working" groups doesn't obviously limit the scope of that
definition.
Please explain. Perhaps there is documentation for the individual and RG
avenues that I missed?
From a process and consensus building standpoint,
this last call needs to be treated the same as an individual
submission, not WG output. RGs are not required to maintain the level
of openness, minutes, etc that WGs do.
Thus, they don't get the
presumption of consensus that a WG does and the comments in 2418 about
last calls do not apply. Even if a particular RG is open, it's still
not a WG; just as we would expect input from an external organization
to be treated through the individual process regardless of the
As John said, there was quite a bit of history to this work. All of it entirely
open.
So I suspect this boils down to a question of whether there is a concern about
actual history or formality of history, and whether you are suggesting that a
Last Call for RG or Ind. Sub. carries an affirmative obligation for the
submitters to provide a detailed review of the decision-making history for their
work?
Again:
If someone sees a specific problem, presents it and explains why they
think it is a problem, then having the submitters respond with details about the
specific history of the relevant decision(s) makes complete sense. This, to me,
is the essence of what a Last Call should deal with, no matter the source of the
document.
If, on the other hand, Last Call is an open invitation for an unbounded
series of "why did you make this decision?" challenges, I'll ask you to explain
how this is a community benefit, absent a broad consensus of concern, rather
than its primarily serving to make the IETF approval process arbitrarily
indeterminate.
We have the real and concrete submission of a specification that documents
existing practice and, so far, a solid demonstration of support for it.
So what is the purpose of encouraging individuals to lodge open-ended
challenges?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf