On Dec 22, 2009, at 8:39 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Brian, > > This seems worth being a bit pedantic about, to make sure we all share the > same understanding: I take your interpretation to mean that the RFC Editor > can, on their own initiative, fix the problem(s) that Julan has raised and > that it does not require changes to the about-to-be-published document. > > > Is that correct? Do others agree? (I hope so.) >
FWIW, I do. As long as those changes are stylistic, editorial, and not so substantive that they cause the various streams to be uneasy with those changes. And in reply to Brian: > Maybe we^H^Hthe IAB should have aimed at full delegation of the boilerplate, > exactly as for the Trust-maintained boilerplate. That is what I intended with: I believe that in the future such efforts should be pulled by the RSE, with IAB oversight and not by the IAB with RFC-Editor input --Olaf (personal title) > d/ > > On 12/22/2009 11:23 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> FWIW, the document allows the RFC editor some headway in maintaining the >>> language in the style guide. > ... >> For now, there are indeed weasel words such as: >> "However, this is not >> intended to specify a single, static format. Details of formatting >> are decided by the RFC Editor." >> >> "These paragraphs will need to be >> defined and maintained as part of RFC stream definitions. Initial >> text, for current streams, is provided below." >> >> I think this gives the RSE, in conjunction with the tools maintainers, >> reasonable flexibility. > > > > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net ________________________________________________________ Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs Science Park 140, http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf