Julian Reschke wrote:
I'm tempted to say that if it takes the authors months to update the
document with the suggested change, then, well, a publication delay of
several months is what they deserve :-).
The only problem with this comment is that some readers might think the smiley
means you (and Paul) weren't being completely serious.
It is always tempting to look for a way to have the administrative
infrastructure make things easier. In fact, as I re-read that sentence, I'm
struck by how silly it might seem to want anything else.
The problem is that "easier" often isn't, when it entails adding mechanism to
the infrastructure. (Hmmmm. I seem to recall learning that concern about
user-vs-infrastructure from the design of Internet technology...)
Let's have the tools and processes help where they have to, and where things
are
strictly mechanical, but let's not have them remove basic responsibility from
those who produce the content. For one thing, we want to avoid making it too
easy to have no one paying complete attention to the changes in the document.
In the spirit of the general goal to move as much work as plausible down to the
working group, the authors should make the required changes, before the
document
is passed to the RFC Editor. Give the RFC Editor a completely clean version.
If it takes months, then that is a measure of the working group's motivation to
get the document published...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf