Re: Query on updated drafts after consideration by the IESG

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

hardie@qualcomm.com writes:

> 	Not surprisingly, they want this to be reconsidered based
> on the changes between -03 and -04.  Is there a standard thing
> to do in these cases?

I gather that these changes update the document and make it better (in
their eyes anyway)? If so, I'd say it would be better to get the
updated document published. If you say the IESG note should still be
the same, that's fine with me.

I'd check with the RFC editor too, because they don't like working on
documents only to find out another rev is in the works. And if we say
"no" now, won't they just try to get them done during 48 hours, which
is generally messier, especially if the rfc editor hasn't really
started working on the -03 yet?

Putting it on the agenda again is fine with me (and maybe is even
appropriate), so long as it had a short note explaining the history so
we don't go back and re-review it, having forgotten having done so
already...

Getting revisions to approved documents is unfortunately fairly
common. Another way to handle it is via the 48 hours ala the note
randy forwarded on the chiba document.

Thomas