--On Monday, July 20, 2009 10:32 +0200 Henk Uijterwaal <henk@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > John, > >> * There is, as far as I know, no precedent for an >> IETF-related body to announce a public comment period on a >> document, make a series of "interim decisions" and announce >> them five days before the end of that period, and then >> leave the comment period termination date in place rather >> than restarting the review on the revised document. > For a purely practical point of view: When I'm asked to > review a document, > and before I start, the author realizes that a section needs > to be modified, then this is something I'd like to know. That > saves me the time to review > something that is known to be changed anyway. Sure. And the period of time you get to make the review starts when you get the changed version. That is why I believe this review period is, in practice, only five days long. > In WGLCs, this happens all the time. Comments are made, > authors acknowledge them and promise a new version. Sure. But, in a WG situation, everyone is assumed to be familiar with the documents and their development and the whole process is one of ongoing development and discussion _by the WG_ until the document is ready to send to the IESG. In that regard, I don't believe that we have any specific, consensus, rules about WG Last Calls -- they are simply an informal tool available for use by the Chair. When we had a document off for review by the community --other than the developing body-- we allow significant time, expect the document to be stable during that review period, and, if it is necessary to change the document after the review starts, we restart the review. So I suggest that your analogy is reasonable and, for the TLP, applies for reviews among the Trustees. It does not shed any useful light on Last Call-like reviews by the community. regards, john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf