Hi Dave,
On 2008-08-11 16:35 Dave Crocker said the following:
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> My personal viewpoint is that it would be inappropriate to strictly
enforce a limit of 5 authors. The use of 'should' in section 2.2,
item 2 of the current document ('There should not be more than 5
authors/editors') seems appropriate given the current RFC Editor
policy, and tools-wise this would then be implemented as a note or
warning at the most, but should never cause a refusal to accept a draft
submission.
1. "enforce a limit" moves a should to a must.
Yes, but nobody is arguing that this should be done...
2. The RFC Editor's policy document does not use language that is as strong as a
should.
Hence, the ID Checklist is making a normative statement stronger than the RFC
Editor and the proposal for the checker to 'enforce' is even stronger than that.
Repeating myself in a new context: Umm??
I didn't propose that the checker enforce such a limit, and I'm not aware of
anyone else proposing it, thus I don't understand why you seem to argue against
a proposal nobody seems to have made. Have I misunderstood what you seem to
be saying immediately above, or have you misunderstood my position?
By contrast, last sentence suggesting simply printing a notice that there are
more authors than preferred captures the RFC Editor policy's statement.
I think you are saying that this makes sense? If so, I think we're in
agreement.
Henrik
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf