[rfc-i] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-rfc-author-guide-00.txt
Paul Hoffman / VPNC
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Sep 3 12:41:04 PDT 2004
At 12:00 PM -0600 9/3/04, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>I believe the approach you are documenting is fundamentally wrong in
I hope you are saying that you believe that the RFC Editor should do
something different, not that you think that I should not be
documenting what the RFC Editor does today. I believe it is critical
for RFC authors to know what is expected of them.
> IMHO, RFC Editor SHOULD NOT accept drafts that require modifications.
Then you should start a different thread on this mailing list about
that. My document describes what I believe is true today; you want
something else to be true tomorrow. Obviously, if your proposal is
adopted, what I write will need to be significantly rewritten.
> Nor should IESG review such drafts, for that matter.
Then you should start a different thread with the IESG.
> It should be authors responsibility to comply with all the rules,
>without spending precious IETF resources.
That is precisely why I am trying to write a clearer document about
the rules. Your view (change the rules and make them more strict) is
--Paul Hoffman, Director
More information about the rfc-interest