On 2/13/2017 8:50 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
The WG participant who felt that the functionality should be in-scope
and is perfectly within bounds to make the case that the functionality
is somehow necessary during Last Call. The chair and/or AD should
summarize why they judged the functionality to be out of scope. Others
in the community might want to take up the argument and explain why it
should be added.
This sounds like reasonable theory, but is actually rather destructive
practice.
It takes the position that Last Call is acceptable to use as a form of
appeals process, where folk who have been working on the topic for an
extended time have to defend their choices to a collection of other folk
who are new to the topic and are, therefore, making snap judgements.
While, yes, there will be times that the new folk see something new or
better, that's not the usual occurrence. The usual occurrence is that
folk who are experienced with the topic and are tired from the extended
effort have to rehash their work and defend it to folk who have not done
their homework.
Either working groups are where the work really does get done or they
aren't. The burden of having to worry about and deal with a larger,
less-involved community being frankly encouraged to second-guess the
folk who have actual skin in the game, is an example of what makes the
formality of IETF process onerous.
Last Call should not require a working group to be subject to random
demands to defend itself. It should be for independent reviews that see
something the working group missed. Missed is different from "we had a
choice and we made it".
If a fresh reviewer really does do their homework and really does
present a good case for making a different decision, that's fine. But
it also is quite different than supporting the re-hashing exercise that
occurrs when an existing wg participant expresses dissatisfaction with a
decision made during normal wg processes.
d/
ps. Pete's other point was about a claim that an issue didn't really get
settled and needs further review. That's quite a different case. Maybe
it's worthy for LC discussion. Maybe it isn't. Dunno.
pps. There's at least one case where I chose to attempt to use LC as a
kind of appeals process, since I deemed the wg process to have been
significantly flawed, including the cognizant AD. Like all good rules,
there need to be some exceptions thoughtfully permitted, though of
course my effort in this example of an exception bore no fruit...
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net