Session Date/Time: 07 Nov 2025 16:30
Discussion was limited to addressing post-Working Group Last Call comments and AD review, explicitly not re-litigating previously discussed issues.
John Klensin's Review resulted in several editorial changes summarized here.
AD (Roman) Review:
* Added a reference to section 6.4 of RFC 2418 regarding the delegation of moderation responsibilities to specific individuals
* The IRTF section was removed at the AD's suggestion
* A caveat was added to the acknowledgements section stating that listing does not necessarily imply support for the work.
Discussion on "Processes" vs. "Procedures":
* Pete Resnick raised concern about the use of "processes," suggesting "procedures" might be more appropriate to avoid connotations of setting IETF policy, which he felt could be contentious. He noted that "process" sounds like IETF policy, while "procedure" sounds like something an assigned group would do.
* A sense of those present was taken. Most felt there was no material distinction between process and procedure in this context, and a few thought there was.
* Pete clarified his concern was that the BCP (Best Current Practice) is about setting a process, but what the moderation team produces are guidelines/procedures, not a process itself.
* Conclusion: editors will read with this specific distinction in mind, focusing on where "processes" refers to the moderation team's guidelines, and potentially revert those specific instances to "procedures." They would then inform the AD.
Document is now expected to go to IETF last call assuming AD review issues are resolved.