[rfc-i] More-than-editorial changes in AUTH48
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Nov 20 01:59:33 PST 2009
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 1:41 PM -0800 11/19/09, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> I would add that is why in AUTH48 changes are reviewed by the w.g. chairs and relevant ADs to make sure the changes are editorial and don't require community review.
> That sentence is out of step with some of the AUTH48 changes I have seen over the years. In some cases, where small but real technical changes that appeared at the last minute, authors have been told by the sponsoring ADs to *not* turn in another Internet Draft, but to put the changes in AUTH48. Doing this inherently short-circuits community review, but has the not-insignificant advantage of expediency for technical changes that authors and ADs consider minor.
I've seen cases where the RFC Editor catched a severe bug that nobody
spotted before. But I've also seen the reverse case. I'm not sure that
authors always check properly during AUTH48.
One way to get more review before publication would be to publish an
"auth48" stage internet draft, and then wait something like 7 days
before finally publishing the RFC.
More information about the rfc-interest