Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last Call announcements and records]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 15-Oct-24 06:29, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> inline plz.
> 
> Den 10/10/2024 kl. 21:53, skrev Brian E Carpenter:
>> [moved from tools-discuss]
>>
>> On 11-Oct-24 08:06, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, October 10, 2024 13:23 -0500 Robert Sparks
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>>> The practices of directorates continuing to change assignments or
>>>> provide comments after last call is something I'll leave to the
>>>> IESG to steer. Note, however, that almost all of the directorates
>>>> also provide telechat reviews, not just last-call reviews.
>>>
>>> (That brings us to an issue that I thought to mention in my earlier
>>> note, decided against it, and may regret mentioning now.  If this is
>>> worth pursuing, it should probably be on the IETF list, not here.
>>>
>>> At least in principle, there is a difference between (i) Last Call as
>>> a community discussion mechanism whose effect is to inform the IESG
>>> about community consensus and (ii) Last Call as a mechanism to feed
>>> information, opinions, and other advice into the IESG so the ADs can
>>> determine what they think is the right decision for the Internet.  If
>>> those directorate/area reviews are given privileged status -- input
>>> into the telechats that ordinary IETF participants don't get, more
>>> flexibility about deadlines, etc. -- then the "treat this like any
>>> other review" boilerplate of most of those reviews becomes a joke or
>>> worse.  It would be somewhat different if those really were
>>> directorate or area reviews -- reviews that were written (or
>>> finalized) only after specific discussion about the document within
>>> that area or directorate and that represented consensus in that
>>> group.  But they often are not -- they are more often the opinions of
>>> an individual who comes up in rotation or draws a short straw.  If
>>> the latter is the case, the community should probably be insisting
>>> that reviews that claim to be (or are treated as) representative of a
>>> group rather than that of the author as an individual be posted
>>> several days before a Last Call ends so that other IETF participants
>>> can comment on whatever is said.
>>>
>>> So telling me/us that directorates provide telechat reviews in
>>> addition to or instead of Last Call reviews is a source of concern,
>>> not comfort.
>>
>> When I was a Gen-ART reviewer it was fairly clear that telechat reviews
>> had two properties:
>>
>> 1. They were public.
>>
>> 2. They were really supposed to be saying either "All my previous
>> IETF Last Call comments have been dealt with" or "The following
>> IETF Last Call comments have not been dealt with: ...".
>>
>> If they go outside those boundaries, yes, there could be a problem.
> 
> Why, consider the situation where an author addresses an "IETF Last Call
> comments" introduces a new issue, aren't you allowed to address that?

I meant: if the comments are *not* sent to public lists there is a problem
of non-transparency.

I certainly think that any comment should be considered, even up to the
moment of RFC publication, if there is an important technical error.

     Brian

> 
> /Loa
>>
>> (Example: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/
>> yS5GdXvzqZhMdueyTjQjRlUVjvg,
>> which was sent to  [e-mail], [e-mail], last-
>> [e-mail], and [e-mail])
>>
>>       Brian
>>
>>
>