Re: Process Point (Was: LDAP Requirements comments)

At 09:40 PM 2001-11-21, Ryan Moats wrote:
>"       - passed WG Last Call - Request sent to Applications Area ADs for IESG Review"

Well, obviously, that's in error or the IESG status pages
are in error.  I assume the chair will clarify and, if the
IESG are at fault, request the IESG Secretary appropriate
corrective action be taken.

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

The document is still a product of the WG.  A WG remains
free to discuss the I-D and provide input to the AD and
IESG.  This input may be solicited or unsolicited by the
IESG.  So, until such time the the chair advises me that
these comments is not appropriate for the WG to discuss, I
will continue to discuss them on the list.

>| 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?

A last call is simply a process tool, calling for detailed
review and comment by all interested parties, to gauge
consensus regarding a pending action.

>If folks can bring up new points on the WG mailing list
>*AFTER* "Last Call" has closed, then the whole concept is
>*bogus*, IMHO. 

Folks can bring up new points at any time during the process.
Folks are encouraged to bring them sooner than later, which is
why I raised the issues soon after I came upon them.

>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".

It would be disingenuous to delay raising new points.

Kurt