> I broadly in favour of this change, but I have a few comments. Thanks, Brian. > First, a minor suggestion on the text itself: > > OLD: > The responsible AD should > still check for downrefs before sending out the last call notice, but > any need to repeat a last call if this has not been done is at the > discretion of the IESG. > NEW: > The responsible AD should > still check for downrefs before sending out the last call notice, but > if an undetected downref is noticed during last call or IESG review, > any need to repeat the last call is at the discretion of the IESG. Yes, that reflects the intent and is more explicitly clear. I like the change. > Second, > >> there are no related security >> considerations. > > That bothers me a tiny bit. A missed downref could have security implications. I agree, but I contend that this doesn't make it any more likely that we'll miss a downref. In fact, this change is only operable when we *don't* miss it -- it simply gives the IESG judgment on whether last call needs to be repeated when we catch it. And the Security ADs will certainly have a say in that, if they think that broader review of the downref is warranted for security checking. > Third, I believe that in addition to this procedural change, there is a > little work needed on the ecosystem: > > 1. Make the downref registry an intrinsic part of the data tracker. I mean that > each document listed at https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry > would instead be tagged as 'downref allowed' in the tracker, with appropriate GUI > support for the IESG to apply this tag. > > 2. Enhance idnits slightly to check this tag when it detects a downref. > A downref to a 'downref allowed' document would be a warning, and a downref > to a non-downref-allowed document would be an error. I agree that those would be excellent changes, and I'll ask Ben, as sponsoring AD, to send that request up to the tools team. I don't gather than you're asking that the document be held for that, correct? The change you suggest above is in my working copy for the next draft revision. Barry