On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request to consider Instructions to Request for
Comments (RFC) Authors <draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04.txt> as a BCP.
This has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF
a very important thing to note
 Eastlake, D. and E. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names", RFC
2606, June 1999.
==> hopefully this isn't the reference practise, should be s/E.
Panitz/Panitz, E./, right?
This seems to be happening with almost all the drafts, with the last of
multiauthor lists, so I'm fearing a bug in the tools?
(of course, tools aren't the problem of IESG, RFC-ED etc. as such, but
should be noted and corrected ASAP.)
After getting a few private clarifying remarks (thanks!), I'd like to
expand this a bit.
It seems this reference model is a "tradition" of a kind.
However, now that the RFC-ed policies are being re-reviewed, it should be
excellent time to fix problems, with all due respect.
Unless, of course, there was some particular point to always writing the
_last_ author (and that only) wrong (in the case that author-count > 1).
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings