[rfc-i] draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-06: overlooked details?

John C Klensin john+rfc at jck.com
Wed Aug 26 19:59:30 PDT 2009



--On Wednesday, August 26, 2009 16:27 -0700 Paul Hoffman
<paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:

>... 
>> I would also hope that there
>> would be no mechanism for anyone to prevent posting of a
>> document that had gone through AUTH48, been signed off on by
>> all relevant parties, and properly released from the
>> Production House to the Publisher.  That is, once a document
>> goes over that wall, no one gets to impose a hold.
> 
> Darn, we were doing so well. -1 on this: I think that the RSE,
> the person who is the public face on the RFC series and the
> one responsible for errors, should be able to stop a document
> at any point before actual publication. HOWEVER, given that
> cases of this would be exceptional, there needs to be public
> notice of the stall, hopefully including a reason.

Well, ok.   This is why I don't like rigid rules, even when I am
stupid enough to try to make them up.    You are correct, there
has to be a way for the RSE to do that and it needs to be
well-documented if it occurs.   And, because it would indicate a
fairly significant failure in the review and hand-off processes,
I'd get really concerned if it were used much more often than
"almost never".

    john



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list