[rfc-i] Substantial revision

Joe Hildebrand jhildebr at cisco.com
Tue May 29 10:04:16 PDT 2012


On 5/29/12 10:43 AM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:

> Change control can be useful for IDs (using the author's source, which
> might support revision), but very few RFCs are ever "bis'd",

Really?  That's very surprising to me.  Do you have any stats to back that
up?  I would have guessed that something like 20% of them eventually get
bis'd, which is significant.

> and benefit from a clean-slate revision more than mere incremental editing.

Perhaps those folks need to release their first version more quickly, then.
I *would* say that people lose interest in the IETF process, and see the
pain for updating their spec to be higher than the value -- precisely
because of some of the issues we've seen on this list in the last week or
two.

> I.e., 
> revision support may be useful for author source, but isn't relevant for
> either the submission or output formats.

That's great if the author and the author's input is still around.  One
benefit of the submitted format is likely to be that it is archived in a
stable location.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list