Re: [idn] Document Status?

[John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>]

--On Saturday, August 31, 2002 7:39 AM +0200 Patrik Fältström
<paf@cisco.com> wrote:

> --On 2002-08-30 21.39 -0700 Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
> wrote:
> 
>> At 10:32 AM 8/31/2002 +0800, James Seng wrote:
>>> I concur with Paul. The authors and the co-chairs have been
>>> working with  the ADs to address these issues.
>> 
>> There seems to be a basic disparity of view about IETF
>> process, here. Comments in a working group forum are not
>> simply one-way input for a design team to take in and
>> privately decide whether it wishes to incorporate.  Comments
>> are for public discussion, review, and acceptance or
>> rejection.
> 
> Dave, not at this time in the process. All documents have been
> handed over from the wg to the AD. We have also passed last
> call.
> 
> When the document is in the lap of the AD, i.e. the wg chairs
> have passed the document to the IESG, the comments follow a
> different path than before.
>...

> Comments during and after last call is to go to the AD.
> 
> In this case, we as document editors get request for changes
> from the AD, we implement them, and report back to the mailing
> list what the changes are.
> 
> So, if you had issues during last call which you find are not
> implemented, you should rise the issue with the AD in question.
>...

Patrik,

I agree with you that this is a reasonable way to proceed.
However, I trust that the results of the rewriting process will
be circulated back to the WG and last-called again, and possibly
run back through an additional IETF Last Call.  It seems to me
that it is appropriate for IESG and document editors to "tune" a
document and then advance it without consulting the WG that
produced it iff either 

	* the changes are not substantive or

	* they clearly represent WG (and, for standards-track
	material, IETF) consensus

Given the nature of Dave's comments (with which I still largely
concur), I cannot picture a non-substantive change that would
satisfy those concerns (although one might be possible).  And it
is unclear to me how you would determine the existence of the
appropriate consensus in this complex area without some relative
of a Last Call.

best,
       john