Last Call Procedure

The following steps specify how documents in the SIP WG will go to, through, and past last call. (You can see the timeline view here.)

  1. Proposal
    1. Author(s) or chairs propose that a draft go to working group last call (WGLC).
    2. Chair checks with author(s) that the draft is ready for last call.
    3. Chairs identifies the Shepherd to run the last call for this draft. This is usually one of the Chairs.
    4. Shepherd polls list or otherwise checks consensus of WG for WGLC of this draft.
    5. Chair, Secretary, or Shepherd create a tracking page for this draft, linked to WG's Last Call tracking page.
  2. Review
    1. Shepherd announces Last Call to WG and calls for volunteers to do detailed review. Discussion commences on list.
    2. Shepherd executes "nits review", checks the draft against nits list (IANA, security, 2026, etc.) and reports results to Author(s) and WG for delousing.
    3. Shepherd assigns detail reviewers.
    4. Discussion continues on list.
    5. Shepherd will act to keep the discussion on-track.
    6. Assigned reviewers will post their reviews within two weeks to the SIP List as part of discussion.
    7. Author(s) track issues, suggestions and conclusions from the SIP List.
    8. After the close of the discussion period, the author should report a summary of the issues, suggestions and apparent conclusions to the SIP List.
    9. Persons raising issues or making suggestions and conclusions should check to verify that their points are addressed in the summary and response.
    10. During the discussion, the chairs or Shepherd may add discussion points to the draft's tracking page.
    11. During the discussion, the author MAY submit a revised draft that addresses issues raised in the discussion. WGLC may continue with the revised draft or be rescheduled appropriately at the discretion of the chairs.
  3. Consensus Determination
    1. At the scheduled close of the last call, the Shepherd will record issues, suggestions, and conclusions and poll the chairs for an evaluation of consensus.
    2. The chairs may choose to poll the SIP List or use other mechanisms to evaluate rough consensus on the draft.
    3. The chairs report the consensus to the SIP List. This consensus will indicate a need for rejection, additional review, further work, further work and additional review, or transmission to IESG.
    4. Chairs or designated party record consensus to the draft's tracking page.
  4. Transmission to IESG
    1. If the conclusion is to proceed to IESG, the shepherd completes a PROTO writeup for the draft, and the chairs request publication (including the writeup) from the IESG ( The responsible area director is included on the request to the IESG.
    2. The chairs or shepherd note the referral to IESG on the draft's tracking page and notify the SIP List.
    3. If the conclusion is to return the draft to the author(s), the chairs notify the author(s) and SIP List.