Dave:
I agree with Birain's assessment. The RFC Editor can handle this
issue without delaying publication of the document.
Russ
At 02:39 PM 12/22/2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Brian,
This seems worth being a bit pedantic about, to make sure we all
share the same
understanding: I take your interpretation to mean that the RFC
Editor can, on
their own initiative, fix the problem(s) that Julan has raised and
that it does
not require changes to the about-to-be-published document.
Is that correct? Do others agree? (I hope so.)
d/
On 12/22/2009 11:23 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> FWIW, the document allows the RFC editor some headway in
maintaining the language in the style guide.
...
> For now, there are indeed weasel words such as:
> "However, this is not
> intended to specify a single, static format. Details of formatting
> are decided by the RFC Editor."
>
> "These paragraphs will need to be
> defined and maintained as part of RFC stream definitions. Initial
> text, for current streams, is provided below."
>
> I think this gives the RSE, in conjunction with the tools maintainers,
> reasonable flexibility.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org
http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf