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

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 22 April 2021 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E218B3A0646 for <>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OQn6Qme7oqIx for <>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::430]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A84863A05A7 for <>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 10so23688075pfl.1 for <>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KBXei9IHad6Tk2ZAR3uJR63T/pIAS+Ugv4WywQ3mKak=; b=hC2l/sPtKr+y9viKw0lEvPeJhrl4ZLk+LZLfDXJxxGyqtfEqu9lNpnFRVp6DdgVnkq F4TTxSqjOxHhAehrVTVKTbBHuPo/s2mhcryu0itSCi0NjRRfA594rpeL9TH1NUrx/7PT QKmlh9jviCspfto0GJj9r5epTh4nbxDRK8f+QALTVu9hlNQ40shJFC8m8AE0KjdKTE+D G3bhydhfhJtqcne9IIhj5DZuylqoMXUKIS/J079pnED17KxzbZ0pxcn6BfybF3eQKpma gUqf+3wf6NW4o8FFWWXWa71K0STPsJ+4jYlW2Vk56946ZY+ltXPQ7EoyA56fhd/5WqSc vS8g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=KBXei9IHad6Tk2ZAR3uJR63T/pIAS+Ugv4WywQ3mKak=; b=PSwE87D8/0izWKZsZ41S+LiKNkGOppt9NhLLsglACy1h++Q++m9Xkj795OZtFREBZ1 pCAb5qKKf8E9kzubSGOemwowpkJQXwSPFsDK3d7EEH6jp0F21qGQ8QX8giQnks5RujEm TCaHhWLckvV+x9gogRS3gOHOjyN8vVD/L/qMZkliE/Lz/+FuMmbMonN/6R9gdny4hgWQ jhEk+n2ZnzafdGpnD1v7/ytEEKagy5oiguEYh6Zs9fnLW3vccd+bXrKaIevRQ6OU2U8U 6u5OeXPS2qFsqx+vRAAxONkPJ8Ue6X7aDR5YK2FdkTMcvbKMg6ng77CNbsirdnBXFLzs SMjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5315gS0qNT+yDy16XGlQgLXHfowgdqnU7ifSFVoXi/kxhsIJj8Zo xD8zUJnHcGLA6VIzChECPvwdosIv6DgzAw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz4NDnac3xqfxPSzF5EcJXoAhOSo4vG9nKYumO/kSJcskBGBZRWBy7UMnNCMPOSvoqfXxrWdA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:190b:: with SMTP id z11mr464439pgl.314.1619124041060; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id t23sm2950569pju.15.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Stray thoughts on ' Update of IESG statement "Last Call Guidance to the Community"'
To: tom petch <>,
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:40:36 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:40:47 -0000


> Last, comments from organised review teams should be sent to the last 
> call list as opposed to being made available to the community.

The last call list *is* available to the community, so this is just
being more specific about what "available to the community" means.
Is that a problem?


On 23-Apr-21 04:16, tom petch wrote:
> 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: <>
>> 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 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 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 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
>> list in addition to the review team itself, if they are
>> intended as Last Call comments.
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF-Announce mailing list
>> .