On 9/14/2014 2:12 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > At 01:09 AM 9/14/2014, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> On the other hand, isn't the cost of an IETF Last Call on what amounts >> to consolidation of already-approved documents, and nothing else, a >> fair bit less than the real cost of a typical IETF Last Call on new, >> updated, or otherwise not-yet-approved work? Given the no changes >> constraint, the Last Call reviewers only need to confirm that the >> consolidation was done correctly and the result is still >> understandable. There's nothing new to debate here. > > Have you see an IETF Last Call (humorous rhetorical question)? More > seriously, I appreciate your optimism, but empirical evidence Sadly, Mike is being pragmatically accurate in his concern/prediction. > Instead, let me suggest you do the above - but to a specific ID stage. > Let the/a Nomcom adopt the operations section of a specific ID as part > of their 3777 permitted operational discretion. That deals with the > Nomcom's particular problems without the need to deal with the RFC process. This seems both useful and efficient. Sometimes we do allow that combination in the IETF. In formal terms, it lets the Nomcom be the sole deciding group for its own use of a consolidation version, while letting the full IETF community then pursue corrections and enhancements. > I do understand the desire to take small bites - I just think you're > trying to solve your first problem (Nomcom process) the wrong way. Within a group that has better working processes, the small-bites model works well. However as much as we might wish the IETF qualifies, it doesn't. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net