Stray thoughts on ' Update of IESG statement "Last Call Guidance to the Community"'

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

I finally got around to finding the previous IESG statement on this, 
from 14 years ago, to see what has changed.  AFAICT there are three changes.
First a reference to BCP9.
Second a request to make it clear which I-D is being commented on.
Last, comments from organised review teams should be sent to the last 
call list as opposed to being made available to the community.
I am left wondering why, and why now.  There was a discussion about the 
usefulness of the last call list recently but that does not seem 
relevant.  As ever, this comes from the IESG so will have one or more 
humans behind it, as opposed to being created by AI, but I do wonder who 
and why.

Tom Petch



On 16/04/2021 18:51, IESG Secretary wrote:
> Last Call Guidance to the Community, 16 April 2021
>
> Online: <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/last-call-guidance/>
>
> In line with BCP 9, the IESG issues IETF Last Calls for all documents in the
> IETF Stream.
>
> In normal cases, since this is the final stage of open community review, the
> IESG prefers that comments on Last Calls be sent to the [e-mail] list.
> Authors, WG Chairs and the responsible Area Director are presumed to see all
> such messages, but they may be copied if the person sending a comment so desires
> (e.g., by copying the [e-mail] email alias.)
>
> It is appropriate to send purely editorial or typographical comments only to the
> authors, WG Chairs, and the responsible Area Director.
>
> If substantive discussion of a technical comment is needed, then it is often
> appropriate to move that discussion to the WG list, once the comment has been
> made on the last-call list. (For non-WG drafts, it should normally stay on the
> last-call list.)
>
> In exceptional cases, a comment may be sent only to [e-mail]. However, the
> IESG will normally need to discuss these comments with the authors, the WG
> Chairs, and possibly with the WG as a whole. Once a comment is sent to the IESG,
> it becomes a contribution to the IETF standards process, even if anonymity is
> requested.
>
> Please ensure that it is clear which draft is the subject of a comment. From a
> practical point of view, Last Call comments should preserve the beginning of the
> original subject header, up to at least the end of the draft name. For example,
> a comment on:
>
>    Last Call: draft-ietf-pigeon-post-02.txt (Avian Mail Transfer Protocol)
>    to Proposed Standard
>
> could carry a subject such as
>
>    Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-pigeon-post-02.txt - what about avian flu
>    risk?
>
> This is to ensure that Last Call comments can be automatically sorted.
>
> There are some organized review teams in the IETF (e.g., Gen-ART and the
> Security Directorate). Reviews from such teams should be sent to the
> [e-mail] list in addition to the review team itself, if they are
> intended as Last Call comments.
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
> .
>