Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:59:46 +0100

>Yes, you've brought that to our attention several times. If you wanted this spec to align with your software, it would have been much easier if you'd got involved before Last Call.

Why is it called <Last Call> if we don't accept any new input (e.g.,
draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07) . Why do we call RFC <Request For
Comment> if we don't want people to comment on (e.g. RFC2119).

We SHOULD discuss any input any time, thank the participant, and
accept only consensus on each input at any phase of time.

AB

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 04:09:11 -0800

> accept only consensus on each input at any phase of time.

This is true, and a timing objection is a pretty low-quality response
to a substantive issue. This particular timing objection is also
somewhat misleading, since it looks like more than one person provided
this feedback prior to IETF Last Call without receiving a response:
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg08531.html>.
My message on the matter was sent on December 3rd, 2012.

- Rob

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 22:07:35 +0100

The same thing happend to me on one work last call, the WG chair and
authors didn't want to take my input or any minor change in the
document.  The good thing is that if the IESG request a change they
will be welling to change, so don't worry if the comments are
reasonable to IESG it is already heard (i.e. but just in case not
seen, send your comments again to iesg address).... :-)

AB

On 1/6/13, Robert Sayre <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>Yes, you've brought that to our attention several times. If you wanted
>>> this spec to align with your software, it would have been much easier if
>>> you'd got involved before Last Call.
>>