[rfc-i] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-rfc-author-guide-00.txt

Alex Rousskov rousskov at measurement-factory.com
Fri Sep 3 13:21:33 PDT 2004


On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:

> At 12:00 PM -0600 9/3/04, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
>> I believe the approach you are documenting is fundamentally wrong 
>> in IETF context.
>
> 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.

Both, actually. I am in no position to suggest what you should be 
doing, but (if you do not like the current practice) I would recommend 
against re-documenting current practice details.

> I believe it is critical for RFC authors to know what is expected of 
> them.

Critical? Hardly critical under the current scheme where kind and 
forgiving RFC Editor will fix author bugs. It would be required under 
a scheme where RFC Editor does not accept broken drafts, of course.

>>  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.

The "will need to be significantly rewritten" part is the motivation 
for my comments on this thread. You have the resources to document 
something. If (and only if) you believe the current process needs 
significant changes, perhaps you will consider documenting those 
changes instead, for community review and adoption. It is just a 
suggestion, not criticism.

>> 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 
> another approach.

N.B. I am not advocating making rules more strict! I am advocating 
placing exclusive responsibility for applying the rules on authors 
(and providing them with tools to check their work).

Thank you,

Alex.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list