Re: [bmwg] 3rd WG Last Call on Address Hash and Bit Stuffing Draft(06)

At 04:12 PM 11/13/2006, David Newman wrote:
>Process question: This ID is now out of last call. What's the drill for
>modifying documents that have passed out of last call? Specifically,
>does the change you've requested mean another cycle of ID numbers and
>another last call?

IMO, if the changes from this WGLC are purely editorial,
we can move on to "publication request".  If substantive
changes were made, then another very short WGLC is usually in order
(1 week, care now/not) at this stage of maturity.

>(This document began life as a simple "app note" at IETF 60 in December
>2003. I would imagine that many subscribers to this list would be
>delighted if their managers allowed them three years to write an app
>note...)

Yup.

When a document pops out of the (long) standards process, the ideal
outcome is when the product is "greater than the sum of the parts".

What I mean is this: by sharing our reviews and comments along the
way, one person takes someone else's suggestion and expands on
it in a way that neither originally envisioned. This sort of
interaction would not take place if the reviewers work independently.
In our group, interaction can happen on the list or at meetings, but the
reality that standards work is a sideline for most folks means it
will take time to get attention.  And of course, we must be
vigilant to keep any draft from becoming "a horse, as designed by
Committee".  Pushing-back takes time, too.

Al

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg