On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:48:43 -0400
John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
Personally, I don't even like RFC Editor notes for things that can and
should be corrected by the author. As both an author and an AD, I much
preferred clean new copies.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf