--On Thursday, April 22, 2010 13:23 -0700 Bob Braden
<braden(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU> 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,
My concern, and what motivated my comment, is that, for
documents that are supposed to represent consensus within some
stream, the author (and even the author + WG Chair + AD) may not
be the final authority on "right". If was not a concern that the
RFC Editor has behaved inappropriately at any time. So, for
really substantive changes about which there is any doubt, I
would interpret "better to get it right than get it early" as
requiring a trip back to the relevant WG and/or IETF Last Call
for confirmation, not just an author assertion.
I don't think we ought to need specific rules on that subject.
I do think that, if they community's preference agrees with
mine, it would be good for the community to make it clear to
authors, ADs, and the RFC Editor that the expectation is that
they will use discretion and initiate a community [re]review of
proposed changes when appropriate.
best,
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf