On May 20, 2013, at 8:56 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > However, if > > (i) the expert review consists largely of making sure > that the template contains the right information and the > ducks are not obviously out of line rather than a > design/architectural review with at least meaningful > potential for community review of the request, and > > (ii) the response to a design/architectural concern > raised during IETF LC is essentially "too late, code > points already allocated", and > > (iii) "Proposed Standard" still does not imply > "recommended" and the alternative to approving the I-D > for that category is non-publication, > > then I would like to understand, as a procedural matter, what > the IETF Last Call is about. Whether or not the document clear enough for an implementor to create interoperable software from. That's what the IETF is supposed to be doing, yes? > Certainly it is not for editorial > review; that is the RFC Editor's job and there are, IMO, no > glaring editorial problems. Correct. > If the RRTYPEs have been allocated > and can't be un-allocated and this is in use, then there is > nothing to propose as an individual submission for > standardization: an informational document to inform the > community about what this is about would be both appropriate and > sufficient. ...only if the authors don't care about interoperability between implementations. An author asking for IETF-wide review seems like something that should be encouraged, not pecked to death. --Paul Hoffman