Wearing my co-chair hat:
We had a WG Last Call. It brought out a lot of issues, and we dealt with each of them (not always to the satisfaction of the person who brought up the issue, of course).
We had an IETF-wide Last Call. It brought out a lot of issues, and we dealt with each of them (not always to the satisfaction of the person who brought up the issue, of course).
New issues for the format spec are now being brought up, issues that existed *before* the WG Last Call, much less the IETF-wide Last Call. The IETF process allows for this. If we make any technical changes after the IETF last call is over (that is, weeks ago), we will probably have to go through an IETF Last Call again. Good engineering design allows for this. Many of us work for, or have worked for, companies whose product ship dates slipped for months or even years as improvements were made before shipping 1.0.
Rob and Mark are nearly done with the version of the draft that answers IETF Last Call issues. Tim and I planned on taking that to the IESG as soon as it was published.
HOWEVER, since it is clear that many people in the WG want to continue to add or change technical features in the document, we need to decide NOW what the process should be.
Does the WG want to be able to open up new topics, or re-open old topics with a twist? If so, do we all agree to the delay in publication that comes with that? Also, how long should this opening and re-opening last? Are there any limits on which parts of the spec we are willing to change?
These are serious questions. No one will be surprised that Tim and I want to follow the normal process and finish with the results of the IETF-wide Last Call, nor that we dread the idea of the WG opening new issues that could have been dealt with long ago and reopening issues that were actively closed. We are here to serve the Working Group, and if the Working Group wants a significant delay in finishing the spec, we can (probably grumpily) ask Scott for that change to our charter if there is rough consensus in the WG that that is what you want.
--Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
