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

Tom,

> 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?

Regards
   Brian

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: <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 last-call@ietf.org 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 draft-name-xyz.all@ietf.org 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 iesg@ietf.org. 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
>> last-call@ietf.org list in addition to the review team itself, if they are
>> intended as Last Call comments.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF-Announce mailing list
>> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>> .
>>
> 
> 