Bob,
I hope we all agree with that. There can be a difficulty, however,
if the apparently obvious and correct technical fix actually has
implications beyond the obvious that might be picked up by renewed
WG discussion or even a repeat Last Call.
But I think we would be foolish to legislate on this or to mandate
the overhead of a new draft in every case. Let's leave it to the
judgment of the RSE, document authors, shepherd and cognizant AD to
decide if wider discussion is needed in a particular case.
Brian
On 2010-04-23 08:23, Bob Braden wrote:
If I may comment from my position as ex-RSE, the RFC Editor's policy for
at least the past 10 years has been to fuss at authors who ask for
substantive changes in AUTH48, but then to follow the dictum: "better to
get it right than get it early". In other words, the RFC Editor did push
back but generally did not refuse suhstantive changes in AUTH48.
Bob Braden
John Klensin wrote, in part:
The one change that, IMO, might be worth making in this regard
would be to explicitly empower the RFC Editor to push back, if
necessary by going back to the community, if, in their judgment,
substantive changes that deviate from the approved document are
requested at AUTH48. My own view is that they have always had
the ability to do that although I don't believe it has been
exercised since the AUTH48 procedures were created. I have no
opinion as to whether there are cases in which it should have
been.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf