Re: The purpose of a Last Call

[Leslie Daigle <[e-mail]>]

+1

If it's going to be an IETF Standard, it has to have IETF consensus.

This seems consistent with the way individual (i.e., non-WG) submissions 
are handled through the IESG.

Leslie.


Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 11/7/08 at 9:38 AM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
>> Sam Hartman wrote:
>>> It seems quite clear to me that RFC 2418 does not apply at all to the 
>>> output of an RG.
>>
>> I've looked around and the WG Guidelines doc happens to be the only 
>> place I could find that defines the purpose of a Last Call. The mere 
>> fact that the title of document is about "working" groups doesn't 
>> obviously limit the scope of that definition.
>>
>> Please explain.  Perhaps there is documentation for the individual and 
>> RG avenues that I missed?
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4844.txt
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-rfcs-03.txt
> 
> We have (IMO) historically screwed up with regard to IRTF and individual 
> documents and not given them a proper stream to the RFC Editor. The 
> above documents are dealing with that problem.
> 
> However, for this particular case, I'm with Sam: An IRTF document that 
> is going into the *IETF* standards track is pretty much akin to an any 
> other organizations documents going into the IETF standards track. It 
> may be the case that the IETF and IRTF have a lot more sharing of 
> resources and visibility, than say the IETF and ITU or IEEE, and 
> therefore the hand-off should be quite a bit easier. However, there is 
> no doubt that this is *different* than a WG handing off a document to 
> the IESG for standards track approval. A WG has (ostensibly) been 
> subject to the direct observation of an AD all along and therefore the 
> IESG should have a pretty full understanding of the IETF-wide consensus 
> that has built up around any document coming out of that WG by the time 
> the Last Call comes around. That's not going to be the case for an IRTF 
> (or individual or other external organization) document.
> 
> Yes, this is a less-than-efficient use of IETF Last Call. But if you 
> want to make efficient use of the process for an *IETF* standards track 
> document, work on it in the IETF.
> 
> pr

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[e-mail]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf