Congratulations to the WG and Editors this document has made it to the
IESG! This email outlines the process as this I-D will now move first to
wider IETF for review and finally to the IESG.
I have now submitted the Shepherd writeup together with this I-D to the
IESG. Here is what happens next (most of which happens outside of the
working group):
## 1) IETF Last Call
The submission will tigger an IETF-wide Last Call that lasts 2 weeks (3
if overlapping an IETF meeting week). Several directorate reviews are
also requested at this time. These reviewers are usually not experts in
the document’s topic, and come in with fresh eyes. The editors are
usually responsible for answering these comments – however if there is
any comment that does not have a clear resolution, the editors should
ask for the chairs and the working group’s help. Comments are welcome.
## 2) Post IETF Last Call
I will then change your document's status to "IESG Evaluation“ to
trigger the IESG to start reviewing the document. Usually, IETF LC
necessitates document changes, and the WG will need to publish a new
version of the draft. If those changes are major, the status will not
change until a new version is available. Please upload as soon as
possible. If the changes are minor, I will move the status to "IESG
Evaluation(—)”. I will finally issue a ballot for the IESG for a
scheduled telechat date.
## 3) IESG Evaluation and Telechat
The IESG will discuss your document, both in the datatracker and on a
teleconference (which serves as the deadline for all AD reviews). It can
take between one and three weeks to get the document on a telechat
agenda. In the five (or so) days before the telechat (which is always on
a Thursday), you can expect to see reviews come in by e-mail. ADs do not
expect immediate replies to their reviews. That said, quick responses
may improve document processing time.
The editors are usually the best placed to respond to reviews, but
chairs, shepherds and WG expert participants might have the answers too;
anybody is welcome to reply. For guidelines on how to handle AD ballots,
see:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/.
A short recap:
* A DISCUSS needs to be addressed and solved. Keep an eye for these and
prioritize them.
* COMMENTs are less important issues, and strictly speaking won’t block
the document. Please do reply to them anyway as that is how I as AD will
check what comments have been seen and addressed.
## 4) Post-IESG evaluation
Unless a major issue emerges during IESG evaluation, the editors should
submit a draft with updates reflecting IESG reviews within two weeks of
the telechat. After that, I will follow up with the other ADs to remove
DISCUSS ballots (if any) and assure that their COMMENTs have been
appropriately handled. I will then change the state to “Announcement to
be sent” with no substate.
## 5) Approved
Your document is sent to the RFC Editor. If anything comes up that is
not editorial during what has been traditionally called the AUTH48
process, I will be asked to sign off on the changes. Most of the time,
these are obvious clarifications; if the changes are bigger, then the WG
and community should be consulted.
Best wishes,
Gorry
(WIT AD)
