On 2007-01-12 09:54, Pekka Savola wrote:
Well, it seems rather common that IETF LC comments (especially if not copied to ietf@ietf.org list) are not responded.
Firstly, this is the reason we recently made some minor changes in the text of the IETF Last Call messages, and why you will see a related IESG statement in the next few days. We'd rather that LC comments and follow-ups are on a public list in most cases.
To reduce delay, it also seems common that IESG telechat is scheduled as soon as possible after IETF LC closes,
Yes, since the community has asked us to reduce delays...
and document is usually not taken out of the agenda if comments are received during the LC.
That depends on the AD's judgement whether the comments are serious enough to definitely require a new I-D. Quite often the AD will prefer to get any DISCUSSes on the table at the same time, again to reduce delay. It's highly unlikely that a document would get approved in its first appearance on the agenda in the presence of non-editorial LC comments.
Also sometimes the document gets approved without there being any record (e.g., on IESG ballots) that some comments had been made but there was no response.
Well, again, it is entirely possible for the IESG to make a decision in voice discussion that the LC comments in question are editorial (in which case the draft can be approved subject to the AD requesting the necessary editorial fixes). And the IESG can also decide in voice discussion that a LC comment is simply in the "rough" part of rough consensus. I'd say this is fairly unusual, but I don't have numbers. I agree that in such a case, it would be at least courteous for the AD to tell the commenter and the PROTO shepherd this.
Therefore it is not clear to me whether such comment was "addressed" (I'd call this 'processed') but without public record [e.g., editor or chair] in essence rejecting the comment (possibly in good faith) or not received at all (maybe also in good faith, e.g. if WG mailing list discards non-subscriber posts or the moderator is asleep).
IETF LC comments are supposed to be sent to the IETF list, which has a public archive (or exceptionally to the iesg).
Maybe we should be clearer on what the expectation for processing IETF LC comments is. Unless we do, it is not obvious how we could evaluate whether the procedure has been carried out properly or not.
I think RFC 2026 is fairly clear and the issue is transparency - again, that is why the IESG now has a preference for IETF LC comments to go to the IETF list. That's a first step towards better tracking. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf