[yam] Notes from the phone talk between IESG and YAM WG participants

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Based on Chris' Notes and my edits. If people who were present on the 
call think that I've misrepresented something, please let me know.

==============================
* WG is serious about moving things to full standard.  WG chairs
committed to enforcing charter and avoid things off charter, such as 
process related changes
* Purpose of pre-reviews is to scope work before doing it (feasibility
test) and to avoid "late surprises" to the extent feasible.  WG wants 
both likely DISCUSS issues and nice-to-have change suggestions from IESG 
to evaluate early.
* WG understands that new IESG members, inadequate resolution of a 
pre-review DISCUSS issue or new IETF last call issues may result in IESG 
DISCUSS positions, but wants new IESG members to justify 
non-IETF-last-call DISCUSS issues in context of IESG pre-review 
feedback. A suggestion to remind ADs about pre-reviews is to include
a pointer to original pre-review response from IESG in the shepherding
write-up.
* IESG wants pre-reviews done as management items.  IESG will send email
with results of pre-review to WG. IESG would welcome any comments on 
content of such email messages and will revise their format based on WG 
feedback.
* An intent to move something to Full Standard later during YAM WG
lifecycle is not by itself sufficient to justify a downref. So downrefs 
need to be justified independently, as highly unlikely to incompatibly 
change a Full Standard, and called out explicitly during IETF Last Call.
* It is OK to 1). explicitly call out downrefs in IETF Last Call, 2).
move documents referencing each other as a set, or 3). move documents 
with normative references that sit in RFC editor queue waiting for
dependencies. The WG should choose the most appropriate mechanism and
can choose different mechanisms for different documents.
* IESG would be happy to do other phone calls between IESG and YAM WG in
the future.