On 5/1/13 2:10 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On May 1, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Scott Brim <s...@internet2.edu> wrote:
Let's rename "last call" to
something like "IETF review" and stop giving people the wrong
expectations. Review outside the WG is vital, can be done repeatedly,
and must be done by the whole IETF at least once.
Yup. The term "last call" is traditional, and I feel a bit of attachment to
it, but I think your observation here is exactly correct: we ought not to think of the
IETF last call as the end of the process.
However, that is a bit of a problem, because I think it's fairly rare for documents to
get additional "review" at last call time. Changing the name probably won't
fix that.
It feels like unless something is particularly controversial that the
likelihood of it getting useful review other than solicited ones during
last call has actually gone down. If it's fully cooked, and sometime it
seems that they aren't, that lack of commentary does not indicate
consensus or readiness in particular.
