On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Scott Bradner wrote: > > Sam Hartman wrote: > > > would it be reasonable to just say that we are going to > > > always last call IETF review documents? Personally I'd > > > approve of this option unless people think it is too > > > restrictive. > > > > works for me (assuming that you include non-IETF documents > > when you say "IETF review documents") > > In which case, what you last call is not the document itself but > what the IETF intends to say about it, and do about the related > IANA action. > > That being so, I think we now have running code proof that this > is what the community wants.
To make sure I understand what is being said here, is the proposal that a Last Call would be required for the policies labelled "IETF Review" and "IESG Approval"? That seems reasonable to me. And if a last call requirement is added, I don't think there is a reaon any more to change the name to "IETF Review" from "IETF Consensus". I would be less supportive of a proposal to require Last Call in connection with the "Specification Required" and "RFC Required" assignment policies. That seems too heavyweight. However, I do think that it would be reasonable to require that the supporting documents be reviewed by a designated expert to verify that it they are sufficiently clear to make possible interoperability between independent implementations. //cmh _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
