> There is a significant problem with have a document edited > pre-approval and then not re-editing post-approval, namely the > changes that get introduced during the approval process itself. A > typical change is "add a section to the Security Considerations > talking about how Wxyz interacts with this protocol." Unless the > authors use exactly the same spelling, capitalization, reference > format, and so on, that new section will not match the rest of the > document.
Does this mean that you would permit stylistic changes as part of the post-approval editing? > > There is also the very real issue of document authors not doing some > of the proposed edits, either intentionally or unintentionally. If there is a problem with review suggestions not being done or being mangled, wouldn't it be better to have a recheck done as part of the pre-approval review? > > If the document has had pre-approval editing, when it goes into > post-approval editing, one would hope that the editor would look at > the diffs from the earlier edit and only edit the changed sections. > I have no problem with all documents passing through post-approval editing as a safety net, but for those documents already pre-approval reviewed, wouldn't it be better to only correct major flaws (missing boilerplate, etc.). Stylistic consistency is a nice goal, and reasonable people can disagree on how much effort to put into it. I have heard a lot more complaints about IETF publication delays than IETF publication quality. Stephen Hayes _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
