Re: [Cellar] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cellar-matroska-14.txt

Just to insert a thought between a) and b) in Michael's excellent summary
below ...

On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 6:55 AM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>     > Abstract:
>     > This document defines the Matroska audiovisual container, including
>     > definitions of its structural elements, as well as its terminology,
>     > vocabulary, and application.
>
>
>     > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>     > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cellar-matroska/
>
>     > There is also an HTML version available at:
>     > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cellar-matroska-14.html
>
>     > A diff from the previous version is available at:
>     > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cellar-matroska-14
>
> I checked out the diffs, and it all looks good, so I have requested
> publication of the document now.
>
> What to expect next:
> a) comments from our AD (Murray)
>

When Murray is a Happy AD, Murray would send this document out for "Last
Call". This is different from "Working Group Last Call" - it goes to anyone
in the IETF, or elsewhere, who hasn't been participating in Cellar, but has
questions or comments.

While it's not required by the standards process, various "area review
teams" will likely be asked to perform reviews while the document is in
"Last Call"- mostly focusing on their areas of expertise - and send
comments.

At the end of Last Call, our AD would make sure we're all happy with any
revisions that need to be made, and place the (potentially revised)
document on an IESG Agenda, where it would be balloted. That's where
the comments in b) come from.

I hope this helps!

Best,

Spencer

> b) review comments from the rest of the IESG, possibly including DISCUSS.
>    DISCUSSes are blocking comments.
>    We may also get "COMMENTS", which are non-blocking comments.
>
> c) probably we will have to issue at least one revision based upon (a) and
> (b).
>    We should capture the review comments into issue or issues, and reflect
>    back to the people involved where the issue is.
>    The reviewers have limited brain context memory, so reacting fast helps
>    them remember what they said and agree to the changes. Otherwise, we run
>    into thrashing...
>
> d) the document will go to an IESG telechat within a month or two, and
> if/when
>    we have enough positive comments, then it will go to the RFC editor.
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cellar mailing list
> Cellar@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar
>