[rfc-i] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-rfc-author-guide-00.txt
tony at att.com
Mon Sep 6 21:17:13 PDT 2004
Alex Rousskov wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying my doubts! I believe the approach you are
> documenting is fundamentally wrong in IETF context. IMHO, RFC Editor
> SHOULD NOT accept drafts that require modifications. Nor should IESG
> review such drafts, for that matter. It should be authors responsibility
> to comply with all the rules, without spending precious IETF resources.
> And RFC Editor and IESG should be prohibited from wasting time on fixing
> drafts to comply with the rules.
> I believe achieving that ideal would require a different approach to
> documenting the rules, among other things.
While this is a fine sentiment for those I-Ds that are ready to go to
the IESG and RFC Editor, you need to differentiate those from -00
drafts, WG-only drafts and other "thought exercise" drafts that won't
ever be published as RFCs. There are numerous reasons for the existence
of such I-Ds and they do NOT need to be held to the same standards as
those intended for RFC publication.
However, I agree with you for all I-Ds that have gotten far enough along
that they are ready to be sent in for RFC publication.
For the WG I-Ds, I think each WG chair should be looking at the
documents from the id-nits and rfc-nits point of view and require
revisions based on those before allowing them to be passed on to the IESG.
I'm not sure what to do to help increase the RFC-compliance of NON-WG
I-Ds that are destined for RFC publication.
tony at att.com
More information about the rfc-interest