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.)
-
Proposal
-
Author(s) or chairs propose that a draft go to
working group last call (WGLC).
-
Chair checks with author(s) that the
draft is ready for last call.
-
Chairs identifies the Shepherd to run the last call for this draft. This is usually one of the Chairs.
-
Shepherd polls list or otherwise checks consensus of WG for WGLC of this draft.
-
Chair, Secretary, or Shepherd create a tracking page for this draft, linked to WG's Last Call tracking page.
- Review
-
Shepherd announces Last Call to WG and calls for volunteers to
do detailed review. Discussion commences on list.
-
Shepherd executes "nits review", checks the draft against nits list
(IANA, security, 2026,
etc.) and reports results to Author(s) and WG for delousing.
-
Shepherd assigns detail reviewers.
-
Discussion continues on list.
-
Shepherd will act to keep the discussion on-track.
-
Assigned reviewers will post their reviews within two weeks to the SIP List as part of discussion.
-
Author(s) track issues, suggestions and conclusions from the SIP List.
-
After the close of the discussion period, the author should report a summary
of the issues, suggestions and apparent conclusions to the SIP List.
-
Persons raising issues or making suggestions and conclusions should
check to verify that their points are addressed in the summary and
response.
-
During the discussion, the chairs or Shepherd may add discussion points
to the draft's tracking page.
-
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.
-
Consensus Determination
-
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.
-
The chairs may choose to poll the SIP List or use other mechanisms to
evaluate rough consensus on the draft.
-
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.
-
Chairs or designated party record consensus to the draft's tracking page.
-
Transmission to IESG
-
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 (iesg-secretary@ietf.org). The responsible area director is included on the request to the IESG.
-
The chairs or shepherd note the referral to IESG on the draft's tracking page
and notify the SIP List.
-
If the conclusion is to return the draft to the author(s), the chairs notify
the author(s) and SIP List.