--On Saturday, December 30, 2006 6:00 PM -0800 Michael Thomas
<mat(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
I was using "wordsmithing" rather broadly. My probably
idiosyncratic meaning
of "wordsmithing" here was "will this DISCUSS change the
mechanics of the
protocol or not". If the answer is no, we're really just
making the document
more ready for publication IMO. Something that does bring that
possibility
is obviously a lot more serious. It's been my admittedly
limited experience that
my version of "wordsmithing" is a lot more common, and the
source of a lot of delay to varying degrees of dubiousness.
My own personal, long-standing view, is that "clear enough to
implement" together with "comprehensible, even with some effort"
ought to be the requirement for Proposed, with anything more
than that either after Last Call or immediately before it just
being a waste of time and a poor use of resources. Personally,
I'd apply a similar standard to what I expect the RFC Editor to
do. While the formal procedures say nothing about this
particular issue, I've got a much higher threshold for Draft: I
think those documents should not require more effort to read
than the underlying protocol itself requires.
From your comment above, I think that puts us in near-, if not
complete, agreement.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf