Re: Post-Last-Call versions of documents and change logs: suggestion to the IESG

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Sunday, 26 June, 2022 09:06 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> It's already the case that if the AD considers that the
> changes after Last Call and IESG review are substantive, a
> second Last Call can (and should) be issued. Isn't that
> sufficient? It does rely on the AD's judgment, of course, and
> should probably be done more often.
> 
> I agree about the change log, although I tend to rely on
> rfcdiff or iddiff.

Brian,

I think that is exactly the point.  Some of us prefer to rely on
diffs.  Others may believe that a quick review of the change log
may help them decide whether a more careful review (whether by
diff, by carefully reading particular sections, or both) is in
order.  If we want more substantive reviews from more
perspectives, we should make that process as easy and
accommodating to different styles as possible.

I think both Ben and Keith are correct too.  The best solution
will almost always be the responsible AD making a judgment call
as to whether an additional Last Call is needed and erring on
the side of doing one when there is doubt.  Change logs (as well
as diffs) can help inform that decision and, if the AD's choice
is to ask for a review of the changes only, help write the
announcement.  And, if an AD concludes the changes are not
substantive enough to justify an additional Last Call but people
in the community disagree, there should be a good point at which
to raise those objections, ideally without the heavy weight and
time-consuming nature of an appeal.

best,
   john