IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 26 June 2022 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B13C15AAEC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jun 2022 08:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.859
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.859 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=T37971tk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=ZQVLNNbI
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QIUc0M4pl3v8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jun 2022 08:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEFD0C14CF1A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jun 2022 08:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 24679 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2022 15:51:27 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=6064.62b8807f.k2206; bh=KV99mGG2f3H5GNlPxqhVWuSDAtI80ezBsPERFeX5j1I=; b=T37971tk9kKLpRR3nmd5ml1QJa6CWDvpfrv0ATmd1KNqWFl5gO+PwEO6y8O6ZpXSeRhM958jJcPtU6cIqdS0U34nktCj7h7WSsHI5pmFdBIMvkRUkA5jrHkwLa3JpazKCVJI/q8hHxNe/QHpnUWnkjUmuuE5xJaq6bD1vu6qNq9JLn4qp9EcyxZ/RTZyeXn8BvuxP7TKuMjgvmQ+Z6Gu/cwmNAAt05yFAWK9zCptG9gPc1rkzNcmGBSpK2deEmcBkmO5/MxcmwmoMWIoHKdpiYyt/+3+Rg3F685b+U+WJUlkg2bRLvc5rXt0AvdehIYltA28dS67s00+m0xbbMcvHw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=6064.62b8807f.k2206; bh=KV99mGG2f3H5GNlPxqhVWuSDAtI80ezBsPERFeX5j1I=; b=ZQVLNNbIqlaPiuEm/EKySfZZjG7oX3V7KAe3NUBrs7wCmidE3vwog3RuQEWJyJr31j4Vj4of5TABsXpF6eFGv3p7HsBSxUyIswkXgg1GmpKd3PT8Eoar+AMDpCHAJFRmAB/RfSPAjXMgmL2F37LkDZ+ILf9Jmcl9yM7/unhXiVHNfE7N/+6MvQijS4HHgGTtHOfwHYHUVf1fE7olrvfb06/qmZ4HYpEbmRXZA//QdfpixVkoxbYbSkPyjSxrGRbCM7I3Eh7mD/KR0MQWDzXLeQ2CyksR8cVITXc8PSB28RdZerr2FAdeknVLKZUzrar07W3wa9VMpvQSMXQyK86u/Q==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 26 Jun 2022 15:51:27 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id B8F2F4452E52; Sun, 26 Jun 2022 11:51:26 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2022 11:51:26 -0400
Message-Id: <20220626155126.B8F2F4452E52@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: moore@network-heretics.com
Subject: Re: Post-Last-Call versions of documents and change logs: suggestion to the IESG
In-Reply-To: <a8431474-ab23-e032-8ec9-5c2f77a40772@network-heretics.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pMtliWpPR_JOaS7TqPdlPiCZAMA>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2022 15:51:34 -0000

It appears that Keith Moore  <moore@network-heretics.com> said:
>> 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.
>
>It's not the "almost always" cases that I'm concerned about, but the 
>other cases.
>
>IOW, a statistical argument isn't convincing here.

Here's a statistical argument: if we made a new rule that all
modified drafts had to go through last call again, and 95% of those
drafts had only trivial changes, looking at modified drafts would
nearly always be a waste of time, so people won't look at any of them.

If you're saying that ADs do a bad job of managing their documents,
that is a conversation we can have, but in a world of limited time I
would prefer to let them pick the ones to rerun so it's more likely
people will pay attention.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email