Spencer Dawkins wrote:
...
I'm not the guy who has to keep syncing the tools with boilerplate
changes, so I'm not sure how much of a vote I should get, but my vote
would be that taking up that much of the first page of every draft with
information that is wrong, but that nobody even cares about enough to
notice that it's wrong, actually is broken.
I would support accepting the old format until there's a GOOD reason to
revise the toolset anyway, but that's a different question.
Thanks for all you do in support of the community. I used your tools to
produce a draft revision yesterday, so I definitely appreciate you!
...
Thanks.
So, trying to rephrase:
1) Try to bundle all upcoming changes into a single one (headers &
boilerplates, TLP changes, whatnot)
2) Attach a well-defined cut-over date to this change.
3) The changes should be well-defined for Internet Drafts and RFCs. As
far as I can tell, that requires coordination between many parties,
including IESG and RFC-Editor. Do not execute a change until all parties
have agreed.
BR, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf