[rfc-i] Decisions about non-technical content of RFCs

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sat Nov 13 19:21:39 PST 2010


On 2010-11-14 02:51, Tony Hansen wrote:
>  I can see where the RFC Editor could make recommendations in each and
> everyone of these cases, but they would need to be vetted by the
> authors/editors of the documents in questions. But I don't see a case
> for the RFC Editor ever doing any one of these arbitrarily and without
> verification.

That's what the AUTH48 check is for. I think this bikeshed is already
the right colour.

   Brian

> 
>     Tony Hansen
> 
> On 11/13/2010 5:38 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> Greetings again. The current draft says:
>>
>>     Final decisions about the technical content of individual documents
>>     are the exclusive responsibility of corresponding stream approvers.
>>
>> That is hopefully non-controversial. However, it does not cover the
>> non-technical content of RFCs. For example, without the consent of the
>> corresponding stream approver:
>>
>> - can the RFC Editor remove an author's name which was on the Internet
>> Draft when publishing an RFC?
>>
>> - can the RFC Editor change the contents of the Acknowledgements section?
>>
>> - can the RFC Editor make the ASCII art prettier?
>>
>> I can see the answer to this going either way and don't have a strong
>> preference myself. However, the topic should be covered in the update
>> to RFC 5620.
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list