Hi Scott,
> --On Saturday, February 17, 2018 06:22 -0500 "Scott O. Bradner"
> <sob at sobco.com> wrote:
>
>> see RFC 8179 (BCP 79) section 1.m
>>
>> m. "Participating in an IETF discussion or activity": making a
>> Contribution, as described above, or in any other way
>> acting in order to influence the outcome of a discussion
>> relating to the IETF Standards Process. Without
>> limiting the generality of the foregoing, acting as a
>> Working Group Chair or Area Director constitutes
>> "Participating" in all activities of the relevant
>> working group(s) he or she is responsible for in an area.
>> "Participant" and "IETF Participant" mean any individual
>> Participating in an IETF discussion or activity.
> <sob at sobco.com> wrote:
>
>> see RFC 8179 (BCP 79) section 1.m
>>
>> m. "Participating in an IETF discussion or activity": making a
>> Contribution, as described above, or in any other way
>> acting in order to influence the outcome of a discussion
>> relating to the IETF Standards Process. Without
>> limiting the generality of the foregoing, acting as a
>> Working Group Chair or Area Director constitutes
>> "Participating" in all activities of the relevant
>> working group(s) he or she is responsible for in an area.
>> "Participant" and "IETF Participant" mean any individual
>> Participating in an IETF discussion or activity.
from that procedure statements above. Should we expect that we get a reply from an AD when sending comment on a WG draft within the IETF LC? I think at least one AD is responsible to participate/discuss with communities LC comments on this list, some don't think so in IETF.
Should we leave final-discussions only to authors/WG which adopted the draft? IMO no, but must include one AD discussing those community comments.
AB
