Toerless Thank you for this updated revision.
About the next steps: On 04/02/2020, 05:49, "iesg on behalf of Toerless Eckert" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: Hi Benjamin -----%<------%<----- > That said, my one Discuss point is not the end of the road for things; > since as I understand it the WG has already considered the topic > extensively, it may be time to check with the responsible AD about bringing > the document back on a telechat with, e.g., an alternate ballot procedure > ("single-discuss" or the full-on "alternate procedure" from > https://ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/). I don't remember > hearing much from any other IESG members on this topic, at least as of yet. Not quite sure i follow everything you say: My understanding is that E'ric is now the responsible AD for the document, so we authors will simply follow his guidance for any further necessary AD review . Given how we already had a lot of exhaustive and good reviews and resulting fixes, i hope the poor ADs will not be forced to repeat potentialy unnecessary work on such a big document given how the fixes are all well documented and also summarized now in the changelog (summarizing IESG review up to -21 and explaining that there are no fundamental changes just a good amount of detail fixes and textual improvements). But this is my first RFC as big as this, so i have no prior good experience with the process in a case like this. As I am the 'poor' responsible AD now, with the amount of changes in the document, an IETF-wide Last Call is required to ensure a swift process. As soon as I am confident that -22 is 'good to go', then I will start this Last Call, then IESG evaluation, ballot and telechat and hopefully the document will be approved before the new IESG. Regards, -éric ----%<-----------%<---------- _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
