Subject: IPP> IETF Process

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 13:00:49 -0400

What is the process for confirming consensus after substantial changes have
been made to a standard?  In the IEEE and other recognized standards
bodies, if non-editoral changes are made, the final version is
re-ballotted.  Considering the substantial changes made since the WG had
consensus in and shortly after the January meeting in Maui, once we have
updated all the document with what we believe to be the last changes (i.e.
before IESG approval), I believe we should make sure the WG is still in
consensus.

Thoughts??

**********************************************
* Don Wright                 [email-masked] *
* Product Manager, Strategic Alliances       *
* Lexmark International                      *
* 740 New Circle Rd                          *
* Lexington, Ky 40550                        *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax)    *
**********************************************

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 17:31:38 -0400

> before IESG approval), I believe we should make sure the WG is still in

Three things:

1. In general, the chair determines whether the working group has
   reached consensus.  So if changes have been made since the
   working group last reached consensus, the chair decides
   whether/when there is still consensus within the working group 
   on the revised document.
 
2. The responsible AD determines whether an additional Last Call 
   is needed, if changes have been made since the previous Last Call.

3. When IESG is balloting a document action, and the result is to 
   require changes to a document, the IESG also decides whether 
   the changes needed by a document are significant enough to warrant 
   another IESG ballot once revisions are made, or whether the document 
   can be accepted immediately once a designated member of the IESG
   declares that revisions are made.

Keith