--On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 08:27 -0500 Pete Resnick <presn...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>> 1. Make the changes in (A). We still need to say how to make >>> that happen, and how to deal with the increased number of >>> RFCs. >> >> The annual review provides an alternative to deal with the >> increased number of (non-historic) RFCs. A "no substantive >> objection" clause might enable the removal of "drive-by" >> RFCs. > > My concern was not the absolute number of RFCs. It is that, if > we go back to something like 2026 criteria for Proposed, we > should expect a bunch more revisions of RFCs (since we will > find bugs that need to be fixed), and that may put an awful > lot of pressure on the RFC Editor. Because the changes are > likely to only be specific bug fixes and not total rewrites, > perhaps the RFC Editor might be OK with only checking the new > parts and not worrying about the old ones. But this is not > addressed at all in the current document and needs to be Concur. I do believe that, for Proposed Standards only, adopting a rule that only changes are examined when recycling in grade could reasonably be applied to the RFC Editor as well as IETF review. However, I think it is workable only if: -- There is some sort of exception procedure that can be applied when good sense requires it. For example, while our normal practice is that the editor of a spec is the editor of a revision of that spec, there are exceptions. The exceptions can involve sufficiently large changes in style that not editing the whole document could produce a result that is very hard to read and understand. -- Any sort of "tolerate editorially-poor documents" strategy, whether involving "edit only changes" as you suggest above, "accept less-than-ideal writing style as long as the protocol intent is clear" as suggested in my comments, or something else needs to have a clear point at which we apply a different set of expectations. I believe that ought to be the second level in the standards process (whatever that is called). However the line is drawn, I don't think we can have an expectation of high-quality finished documents, fast approval and publishing of Proposed Standards, and little editing work on documents going to the second level john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf