On 15/02/2017 06:05, Dave Crocker wrote: ... > IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418 > >> This Last Call will announce the intention of >> the IESG to consider the document, and it will solicit final comments >> from the IETF within a period of two weeks. It is important to note >> that a Last-Call is intended as a brief, final check with the >> Internet community, to make sure that no important concerns have been >> missed or misunderstood. The Last-Call should not serve as a more >> general, in-depth review. > > (I should note that that text dates back to the original version of the > document that Erik Huizer and I wrote, in RFC 1871, in 1994.) > > > What folks are doing is spontaneously changing the role of this step, > ignoring the considerable costs and detriments, while relying on a > theory of benefit that is very, very, very rarely actually demonstrated. Two points on this: 1. A claim that a choice made by the WG is not only harmful to the protocol under review but *also* harmful to the Internet as a whole would, I hope, always be legitimate under "no important concerns have been missed" during IETF Last Call. That's certainly the basis of an issue that I raised recently. 2. As a Gen-ART reviewer I've often seen drafts at IETF LC that really *need* a general, in-depth review. As a matter of fact, as a document editor, I just received such a review yesterday (whether needed or not is not for me to say). So I'd say that that phrase in RFC2418 takes a very optimistic view of quality control by WGs. Brian