John,
the expectation is that
they will use discretion and initiate a community [re]review of
proposed changes when appropriate.
... and I think that is already happening. We do bring documents back at
times, either completely bringing them back in the process or confirm a
change with
--On Friday, April 23, 2010 10:20 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
John,
the expectation is that
they will use discretion and initiate a community [re]review
of proposed changes when appropriate.
... and I think that is already happening. We do bring
documents back at
Bob Braden bra...@isi.edu writes:
If I may comment from my position as ex-RSE, the RFC Editor's policy
for at least the past 10 years has been to fuss at authors who ask for
substantive changes in AUTH48, but then to follow the dictum: better
to get it right than get it early. In other words,
At 21:31 22-04-10, John C Klensin wrote:
My concern, and what motivated my comment, is that, for
documents that are supposed to represent consensus within some
stream, the author (and even the author + WG Chair + AD) may not
be the final authority on right. If was not a concern that the
RFC
(I've changed the subject line because this topic might interest
members of the community who have long since tuned out the
Pointers to IANA... topic.)
Below...
--On Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:50 +0200 Julian Reschke
julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
...
In some cases there's also a considerable
I might drift slightly toward there should be a published Internet-Draft
that differs only in formatting-as-an-RFC from what is published as an RFC,
but would be willing to listen to arguments that this is too strict - but I
broadly agree with what's said below.
Spencer
(I've changed the
--On Thursday, April 22, 2010 13:27 -0500 Spencer Dawkins
spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote:
I might drift slightly toward there should be a published
Internet-Draft that differs only in formatting-as-an-RFC from
what is published as an RFC, but would be willing to listen
to arguments that
If I may comment from my position as ex-RSE, the RFC Editor's policy for
at least the past 10 years has been to fuss at authors who ask for
substantive changes in AUTH48, but then to follow the dictum: better to
get it right than get it early. In other words, the RFC Editor did push
back but
Bob,
I hope we all agree with that. There can be a difficulty, however,
if the apparently obvious and correct technical fix actually has
implications beyond the obvious that might be picked up by renewed
WG discussion or even a repeat Last Call.
But I think we would be foolish to legislate on
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
There can be a difficulty, however,
if the apparently obvious and correct technical fix actually has
implications beyond the obvious that might be picked up by renewed
WG discussion or even a repeat Last Call.
But I think we would be
--On Thursday, April 22, 2010 13:23 -0700 Bob Braden
bra...@isi.edu wrote:
If I may comment from my position as ex-RSE, the RFC Editor's
policy for at least the past 10 years has been to fuss at
authors who ask for substantive changes in AUTH48, but then to
follow the dictum: better to get
--On Thursday, April 22, 2010 23:45 +0200 Martin Rex
m...@sap.com wrote:
Maybe this is much more of a tools than of a procedural issue?
(I personally don't know the AUTH48 and editing process).
If the RFC Editor would provide his edited document back to the
document author in a format
12 matches
Mail list logo
