--On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 08:27 -0500 Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
1. Make the changes in (A). We still need to say how to make
that happen, and how to deal with the increased number of
RFCs.
The annual review provides an alternative to deal with the
increased number of (non-historic) RFCs. A "no substantive
objection" clause might enable the removal of "drive-by"
RFCs.
My concern was not the absolute number of RFCs. It is that, if
we go back to something like 2026 criteria for Proposed, we
should expect a bunch more revisions of RFCs (since we will
find bugs that need to be fixed), and that may put an awful
lot of pressure on the RFC Editor. Because the changes are
likely to only be specific bug fixes and not total rewrites,
perhaps the RFC Editor might be OK with only checking the new
parts and not worrying about the old ones. But this is not
addressed at all in the current document and needs to be
Concur.
I do believe that, for Proposed Standards only, adopting a rule
that only changes are examined when recycling in grade could
reasonably be applied to the RFC Editor as well as IETF review.
However, I think it is workable only if:
-- There is some sort of exception procedure that can be applied
when good sense requires it. For example, while our normal
practice is that the editor of a spec is the editor of a
revision of that spec, there are exceptions. The exceptions can
involve sufficiently large changes in style that not editing the
whole document could produce a result that is very hard to read
and understand.
-- Any sort of "tolerate editorially-poor documents" strategy,
whether involving "edit only changes" as you suggest above,
"accept less-than-ideal writing style as long as the protocol
intent is clear" as suggested in my comments, or something else
needs to have a clear point at which we apply a different set of
expectations. I believe that ought to be the second level in
the standards process (whatever that is called). However the
line is drawn, I don't think we can have an expectation of
high-quality finished documents, fast approval and publishing of
Proposed Standards, and little editing work on documents going
to the second level
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf