On Dec 22, 2009, at 8:39 PM, 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.)
FWIW, I do. As long as those changes are stylistic, editorial, and not so
substantive that they cause the various streams to be uneasy with those changes.
And in reply to Brian:
Maybe we^H^Hthe IAB should have aimed at full delegation of the boilerplate,
exactly as for the Trust-maintained boilerplate.
That is what I intended with: I believe that in the future such efforts should
be pulled by the RSE, with IAB oversight and not by the IAB with RFC-Editor
input
--Olaf (personal title)
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
________________________________________________________
Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs
Science Park 140,
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf