[rfc-i] [xml2rfc] Fwd: Front-page authors versus authors...
braden at ISI.EDU
Thu Oct 30 12:31:39 PDT 2008
IMHO, the criticisms of the RFC Editor contained in your message are
At 08:47 AM 10/30/2008, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>At 6:56 AM -0800 10/30/08, Bob Braden wrote:
> >This discussion is based upon a fallacy, I am afraid. What you are
> calling th
> >"authors section" (there is no such thing) is really the "authors'
> >section. This has been discussed extensively in the past, and I believe
> it is
> >well documented in 2223bis and on the RFC Editor web page under policies.
>Please note that 2223bis expired over four years ago.
Sorry, I should have been more accurate. I was using "2223bis" as a
shorthand for www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.html.
> >The RFC Editor believes that Jon, despite his general wisdom, misnamed
> >this section; it should be "Contact Information", as that is its
> purpose. The
> >only list of authors is on the top right of the front page.
>Then you should rename the section instead of leaving it mislabeled.
>The policies page has said "It is the RFC Editor's intent to change the
>title of this section in the future to "Contact Information", after the
>community has had time to digest and accept the change" for a very long
>time. What has the RFC Editor done to bring this question to the
>community? Or were you waiting for us to find this on the policies page
>and start the discussion ourselves?
>Further, please note that the RFC Editor is not being consistent on their
>own policies. For example, RFC 5339 doesn't have "Contributors" section,
>it has a "Contributors' Addresses" section followed by an "Editors'
>Addresses" section. RFC 5307 has a "Contributors" section that includes
>addresses. If the RFC Editor was a bit more careful and consistent, it
>would make it easier for the rest of us to know what to do.
>--Paul Hoffman, Director
>rfc-interest mailing list
>rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest