Mohit, I most definitely apologize if I appeared to make any accusations! I do seem to have not kept adequate notes on all my handling of this document.
I meant rather to bemoan the fact that I have repeated an error that I have made with at least one other document, an error that resulted in these very same "change in document status" points being raised. My apologies, -Erik On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 1:17 AM Mohit Sethi M <[email protected]> wrote: > > Argh, I find this email very misleading. I did change the status of the draft > but the ADs were well aware of this change. Erik Kline in his email on 14th > Jan wrote: > > Rene, > > I'm trying to catch up on all the changes between -12 and -19. At a minimum, > since this has been changed from Informational to Standards Track I think we > should have another IETF Last Call. I'll have a read through the full diff > tomorrow afternoon and see if I can figure out what's next. > > In my email response I did state that running another last call may not > necessarily bring in more reviews as the draft is rather crypto-heavy (and > the contents have remained the same). But I left the final decision to the > ADs. I had written: > > I feel that another last call may not necessarily result in more meaningful > reviews. Obviously, as ADs, you have much more experience and I trust your > judgement call on this. > > My original shepherd writeup noted the conflict between the requested values > and the intended status: > > The values requested require "Standards Action With Expert Review" however > the requested RFC type is Informational. However, Jim Schaad who is one of > the experts for the IANA registries has stated in a private email thread that > the IANA section of this draft looks correct. > > > Obviously, ADs can forget in the deluge of drafts. But to hint in anyway that > this was changed and no one noticed would be grossly incorrect. > > --Mohit > > On 2/16/21 2:43 AM, Erik Kline wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 6:12 AM Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-19: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > So this is process violation discuss. This document is up for approval as > standards track. However, there are no evidence that it was ever IETF last > called for standards track. I only find evidence for a IETF last call intended > for informational on 2020-08-25. > > I have not reviewed the content of document yet. I would propose that the > responsible AD pulls this document from this telechat and then performs the > IETF last call before it gets scheduled again. > > Argh, I completely missed that the intended status had been changed on > draft 14 from the LC (draft 12). > > 2020-11-18 14 Mohit Sethi Changing to proposed standard as > requested by the COSE experts. > 2020-11-18 14 Mohit Sethi Intended Status changed to Proposed > Standard from Informational > > _______________________________________________ > Lwip mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
