Marshall,
ok, so the current process is adequate, we just need to be a little
more careful in following it, right?
Mainly yes, but I'm sure processes could be improved, too.
The reason why I sent my initial e-mail was to warn authors. And to ask
them to check to make sure they're sending the right file. This falls
under the category of "be more careful". Similarly, chairs and ADs
should be careful about checking AUTH48 results -- clearly, accidents
can happen and people should not just assume that there was a good
reason for a change.
With regards to process improvements, there might be some ideas as well.
For instance, automated tools -- send the XML from the ID submission
tool directly to the RFC Editor, eliminating author errors and e-mail
roundtrip delays. Other ideas played around in this thread include
prohibiting any XML change. Or immediate checking after reception at the
RFC Editor side that the file is correct. But I'd be a little bit more
cautious here. I'd like to give some room for the RFC Editor to organize
and order their work the best way they see fit, as long as all the steps
that are needed will be taken care of. And as an AD I would rather deal
with one question from the RFC Editor about the appropriateness of
changes, rather than separately for approval, RFC Editor's own process,
and AUTH48 stages.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf