Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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.
Maybe this is much more of a tools than of a procedural issue?
(I personally don't know the AUTH48 and editing process).
If the RFC Editor would provide his edited document back to the
document author in a format that can be diffed to the approved I-D
with a tool like
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=approved-I-D.txt&url2=RFC-Edited-I-D.txt
then it should be sufficiently easy for the document author to
quickly and easily review the RFC Editor's changes and their impact.
If instead, like it just happened on TLS, you get two blocks of 10 lines
of Text titled "errata" with no further comment and an eyeball comparison
takes 5 minutes to determine that only a closing parenthesis was added,
then this makes reviewing changes pretty difficult.
-Martin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf