-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:03 PM
To: olaf(_at_)NLnetLabs(_dot_)nl
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07
Olaf Kolkman rote:
Personally I would like to see that whatever document
enters into the
RFC-Production function (to use the terminology from the RFC Editor
model[*]) has a clean copy in the repository. That allows
for a very
clean interface between the streams and the RFC-producer.
So, I would
argue that the result of (iv) is always posted.
Based on my (quite short) experience as AD so far, it seems
document authors vary greatly in how fast they can update the
document and submit it (once the text has been agreed).
I've seen this done in less than 10 minutes (sometimes before
the IESG telechat ended). I've seen cases where it has taken
several months. In cases where the time is measured in weeks
(relatively
common) or months (fortunately rare), just sending the RFC
Editor note (and not waiting for updated clean copy) saves
time, especially considering that the RFC Editor processes
documents quite fast nowadays.
(I do agree that having a clean copy would be nice, though.)
Best regards,
Pasi
I agree with Pasi here. For a moderate or minor quantity of edits
editing the notes to the RFC editor after all parties agreed on the
changes is fast, efficient, and our under control - thus saving time in
the majority of cases with minimal efforts.
Yes, having a clean copy is better. We live however in an imperfect
world.
Dan
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf