--On Tuesday, 02 September, 2008 14:28 -0500 Spencer Dawkins
<spencer(_at_)wonderhamster(_dot_)org> wrote:
OK...
Summary: This document is very close to ready for
publication as a Proposed
Standard. I have two technical comments below, but both are
minor issues that could resolved in AUTH48 if you think they
have merit.
An aside: The purpose of AUTH48 state is not (should not be)
to resolve even minor issues. Ideally, no issues should
arise in AUTH48, but the world is not a perfect place. But
let's not get in the habit of sweeping minor changes to the
every end of the publication process. The revision process
is pretty cheap.
Agreed. I've been seeing a lot of Gen-ART reviewers, including
myself, who say "could be resolved in AUTH48" as a unit of
size, but I can see how reasonable people assume that it's a
suggestion of tactics :-)
Thanks for the opportunity to break old habits when they
become even less reasonable.
Spencer,
It occurs to me that people may have been saying "could be
resolved in AUTH48" when they really meant "could be resolved in
an RFC Editor note". While, like Paul, I tend to prefer that
the RFC Editor get clean copy, there is a huge difference
between "IESG makes a note to the RFC Editor about a desired
editorial fix" or "IESG makes a note to the Author/Editor about
a desired editorial fix so it can be incorporated into the clean
copy that goes to the RFC Editor" and anything having to do with
AUTH48. The former two are pre-editing and allow opportunities
for discussion of any proposed changes that appear to be
unreasonable. Requesting that changes be made at AUTH48 time is
just, IMO, an opportunity for mistakes and/or abuse.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf