The purpose of a Last Call

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

Sam Hartman wrote:
  > It seems quite clear to me that RFC 2418 does not apply at all to the
> output of an RG. 

Sam,

I've looked around and the WG Guidelines doc happens to be the only place I 
could find that defines the purpose of a Last Call. The mere fact that the title 
of document is about "working" groups doesn't obviously limit the scope of that 
definition.

Please explain.  Perhaps there is documentation for the individual and RG 
avenues that I missed?


  From a process and consensus building standpoint,
> this last call needs to be treated the same as an individual
> submission, not WG output.  RGs are not required to maintain the level
> of openness, minutes, etc that WGs do.  
> Thus, they don't get the
> presumption of consensus that a WG does and the comments in 2418 about
> last calls do not apply.  Even if a particular RG is open, it's still
> not a WG; just as we would expect input from an external organization
> to be treated through the individual process regardless of the

As John said, there was quite a bit of history to this work. All of it entirely 
open.

So I suspect this boils down to a question of whether there is a concern about 
actual history or formality of history, and whether you are suggesting that a 
Last Call for RG or Ind. Sub. carries an affirmative obligation for the 
submitters to provide a detailed review of the decision-making history for their 
work?

Again:

      If someone sees a specific problem, presents it and explains why they 
think it is a problem, then having the submitters respond with details about the 
specific history of the relevant decision(s) makes complete sense.  This, to me, 
is the essence of what a Last Call should deal with, no matter the source of the 
document.

      If, on the other hand, Last Call is an open invitation for an unbounded 
series of "why did you make this decision?" challenges, I'll ask you to explain 
how this is a community benefit, absent a broad consensus of concern, rather 
than its primarily serving to make the IETF approval process arbitrarily 
indeterminate.

      We have the real and concrete submission of a specification that documents 
existing practice and, so far, a solid demonstration of support for it.

      So what is the purpose of encouraging individuals to lodge open-ended 
challenges?

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf