Hi Barry, Clarifications in line... On 19/10/2016 08:55, Barry Leiba wrote: >> 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. True. How about s/related/directly related/ ? But I certainly don't insist. > >> 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? Correct; it's orthogonal. > > The change you suggest above is in my working copy for the next draft revision. Thanks! Brian > > Barry >