Re: [httpapi] linkset draft ready for next steps

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Rich,

Many thanks for your careful explanations. Getting such careful 
explanations in a WG is rare but very helpful for newcomers.

Just two thinks I'd add/change:

1) Somewhere between WGLC and IESG tele-chat, there's also an IETF-wide
    Last Call, usually for 2 weeks, which can also result in comments,
    discussions, and a new draft.
2) "If an IESG member puts a "DISCUSS" vote on the draft, then the
     issues they raise *must* be addressed by the authors and WG.":
    a) Other comments by WG members are also best addressed in some way.
    b) "addressed" doesn't necessarily mean that we need to do exactly
       what the IESG member wants, but it means that we have to discuss
       the issue very seriously and try to do our best, until the
       IESG member is statisfied.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2021-06-08 23:17, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Thanks, Julian!
> 
> So I think that this is the plan we should follow.  Julian will post his comments (ideally this week, perhaps next) and the authors will respond and perhaps post a new draft. If there's disagreement or controversy, we'll repeat that cycle until issues are settled.  Once that's done, we'll issue a working group last call (WGLC) and proceed.  The rest of this note describes the process for those not familiar with how the IETF works.
> 
> WGLC is a time, at least a week, for WG members to raise issues. If there's anything substantive, we restart the process.
> 
> We are in the "ART, Applications and Real Time" area and our AD is Francesca Palombini. She will read the document, perhaps provide another round of feedback, and then request that it is put on the IESG tele-chat. The IESG is all AD's, and they have technical review/oversight of all IETF RFC's. The telechat is every two weeks, and there will be at least that amount of time to give other AD's time to read the document. Many Areas have "directorates" which is volunteers familiar with the area who read and offer input to their AD. This will result in another round of feedback.
> 
> Often the issues are just editorial: "this wasn't clear to me." That happens often when someone reads a draft for the first time, compared to those who have been working with it for a while. If an IESG member puts a "DISCUSS" vote on the draft, then the issues they raise *must* be addressed by the authors and WG. Sometimes that results in a new WGLC if the changes are substantive. The WG chairs decide.
> 
> Once the IESG approves the document, it is given to the RFC Editor staff. They do final copy-editing, work with other registration authorities if needed, and consult with the authors.  Because of the backlog, going from IESG to publication can take months.
> 
> Hope this helps!
> 	/r$