--On Wednesday, July 05, 2017 8:33 AM +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/07/2017 02:56, John C Klensin wrote:
> ...
>> So, with or without the posting deadline, I would prefer that
>> there be explicit AD signoff on _any_ I-D revision during or
>> after IETF Last Call. Such permission means that the AD has
>> reviewed the document and found that the changes are
>> insufficiently important to justify reopening the Last Call
>> (or a heads-up to reopen the Last Call if needed).
>
> I don't think that quite works. When trying to understand and
> clear DISCUSS ballots, I would much rather that changes are
> unambiguously displayed for everybody to see, rather than
> being buried in quite complex email threads (or in
> non-standard places such as GitHub).
>
> Of course you are 100% correct that substantive changes need
> to pass the rough consensus test, at least on the WG list and
> possibly at Last Call level, under the AD's responsibility.
> But I don't think that making it harder to post updates after
> Last Call is a feature.
Didn't intend "harder". I just think it is important to have a
clear (and, btw, appeal-able) chain of responsibility and
accountability for changes made after IETF LC review. We are
in complete agreement about both complex mail threads and
non-standard places, but, IMO, the IESG is supposed to be making
decisions about documents and the state of IETF consensus about
those documents, not conversations that no one can follow and
that may not be documented.
best,
john