[rfc-i] Substantial revision
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon May 28 09:25:44 PDT 2012
On 2012-05-28 17:04, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-05-28 18:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 2012-05-28 16:43, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-28 17:38, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>> New documents shouldn't be minor revisions of existing docs. They
>>>> often need to be substantially revised in content anyway, structurally
>>>> reorganized, etc.
>>> Hmm. I don't think this is true for the case where we go from Draft to
>>> Full Standard.
>> That used to be true, but RFC 6410 removed that case.
>> It seems obvious that system must allow for substantial revision
>> by people other than the original authors.
> Oh, I see (I tried to get it right but got it wrong anyway :-).
> So what about the case where we go from *Proposed* to Full?
I don't have numbers, but I'm pretty sure that the number of promotions
from Proposed Standard with *no* change to the RFC could be counted on my
fingers. Of course that doesn't tell us whether there will be serious structural
change or just minor edits.
More information about the rfc-interest