[rfc-i] More-than-editorial changes in AUTH48
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu Nov 19 11:08:50 PST 2009
Joe Touch wrote:
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> At 8:38 AM -0800 11/19/09, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> If it's too late to make these changes as a group, then it's also
>>> inappropriate to consider them as AUTH48. They're not merely typographic
>>> or grammatical; they underly the discussion on which the consensus is based.
>> The IESG often purposely delays more-than-editorial document changes
>> until AUTH48; why should the IAB be held to different standards?
> The same standards should apply. IMO, if the changes represent community
> consensus, then no problem. If not - if they represent only the
> interests of the IAB, IESG, or any thing less than an open community
> discussion, then I disagree that they should be allowed.
Out of curiosity: how would the RFC Editor find out whether a change has
community consensus in case the community wasn't asked?
More information about the rfc-interest