On 2025-10-28 06:02, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Oct 27, 2025, at 12:32 PM, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote:
On Oct 27, 2025, at 20:04, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:
I tried to remove as much "authors can do $x" from the draft to align with
those sentiments.
That approach worries me a lot.
As an author, I need to know at the outset what I can do.
Before a draft even reaches the RFC Editor, it goes through a stream. So a
document such as this that advises the RPC about its policy cannot tell you
what you can do: you need to talk to your steam managers.
Or I won’t invest time into authoring, because too much time will be wasted by
senseless arguments.
And hyperbole is completely destroying the IETF. (My little attempt at humor
here...)
Of course that knowledge need not come from an RFC, but there needs to be some
community-fed collection of that knowledge.
There is: the stream managers. They literally are the only ones who can say
what might or might not advance to the RFC Editor for publication.
I agree with John that this isn't very helpful for authors. Of course
the technical content of an RFC-to-be has to be approved by the stream.
But the RPC is (and we are) responsible for the unity of the RFC series.
As an example it would be weird if e.g. the IRTF insisted on smart
quotes but the IETF insisted on ASCII quotes. Such matters shouldn't
depend on the streams.
Regards, Martin.
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
