At 21:31 22-04-10, John C Klensin wrote:
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.
There is a difference between "right" and getting a document through
the system. For the latter, it's a matter of placating those in a
position of authority. It would have been good if substantive
changes are brought to the attention of the WG or posted to this
mailing list. if they are not clear-cut. Naturally, substantive
changes that would not reflect what was asked during the Last-Call
would require another Last-Call.
I don't think we ought to need specific rules on that subject.
The Area Directory could say "notify the community" for such
cases. This is the kind of stuff that leads to a rule unfortunately
as there seems to be a confusion within the IETF about guidance and rules.
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.
That's the expectation at this end. I am not suggesting having an "IETF48".
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf