John C Klensin wrote:
> 2026 basically discusses the cases where Last Calls are
> required, as one would expect. But, by long-standing
> precedent and good sense, the IESG is permitted to Last
> Call anything they like on which they might need to make
> a decision in order to get a better sense of the consensus
> or preferences of the community.
Makes sense...
> Certainly one would not want to argue against that.
...based on the "old" informational RFC 3710 rules I could:
In chapter 5.2.2 it says "processed in the same fashion as
an Informational or Experimental document from a working
group", in other words an IETF Last Call (RFC 2026 4.2.3).
But as it happens I've already dismissed RFC 3710 as broken
beyond repair after an overdose of its chapter 4.3 in MARID.
> one would have a lot of trouble appealing a decision on the
> grounds that the relevant AD didn't ask for a Last Call
> first. But that doesn't seem to be at issue here.
Yes, RFC 3710 is only informational, they are not forced to
follow their own published internal rules.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
