Re: Process Point (Was: LDAP Requirements comments)

On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 07:06:17PM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
| At 06:09 PM 2001-11-21, Ryan Moats wrote:
| >On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 01:47:25PM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
| >| In trying to understand where this WG is going, I recently
| >| re-reading the LDAP Requirements. I came across a few issues
| >| which likely should be fixed before this document is progressed
| >| further.  While most editorial in nature, a couple are technical
| >| (and substantive) in nature.  In particular, I suggest that
| >| the current security consideration section be replaced.
| >
| >Process point...
| >
| >I thought that a document past WG Last Call is off limits
| >until IETF Last call.
| 
| First, I assume you mean off limits in the RFC 2418, Section
| 7.5, last paragraph sense.  To the best of my knowledge, the
| document has not yet been submitted to the IESG for
| consideration in accordance with RFC 2418, Section 7.5,
| as the I-D is not listed in:
|   http://www.ietf.org/IESG/status.html
|   http://www.ietf.org/IESG/request.html
|   http://www.ietf.org/iesg/1protocol_actions.txt
| as required if the WG had achieved rough consensus that the
| document should be progressed.  Hence my assumption the WG is
| still the appropriate place to raise these concerns.

Well, my understanding
(based on http://www.imc.org/ietf-ldup/mail-archive/msg01122.html) is
that it has:

"       - passed WG Last Call - Request sent to Applications Area ADs for IESG Review"

Therefore, I think it is off our plate for now.

| Second, if the document was actually submitted, nothing in
| RFC 2418, Section 7.5 should be taken (IMO) as precluding
| discussions regarding the submission are off-limits in the WG.
| Such discussions would be quite relevant to the IESG
| determination on how to progress the I-D.

Uh, then what the *heck* does "Last Call" mean?  If folks can bring
up new points on the WG mailing list *AFTER* "Last Call" has closed, then
the whole concept is *bogus*, IMHO.  If I look at 2026 as well as 2418,
I'd claim these comments (if really for IESG detemrination) should
be going to the IESG during the IETF-wide "Last Call".  Since
that call hasn't been made, and since I don't see the iesg
mailing lists on these posts, I find this claim to be rather
disingenuous (sp?).

Ryan