[rfc-i] Technical changes after AUTH48
rpelletier at isoc.org
Tue Oct 16 07:44:09 PDT 2012
On Oct 16, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again. While we are waiting for Heather and Nevil to publish their updated draft, here is a completely unrelated topic.
> In an IETF WG, there was a -bis document that took forever to get published because technical suggestions trickled in and it was never clear when they were done. The trickle continued through IETF LC. They have continued *after* IESG approval. The document is now in RFC-EDITOR state.
> ...and it now has three technical changes that the authors want applied during AUTH48. These are not small changes: a protocol state is added, a list of states that require an action needs additions, and an appendix that had a complicated descriptive figure is removed.
I'm surprised this question is being asked. I thought only editorial changes were made at this stage.
> Should making these kinds of changes be acceptable? I ask this hoping that the answer is "yes" because I care about the particular document and am distressed that it has taken so long to get published, but if the RFC Editor is going to disallow the changes, the WG should know early so that a -ter document can be prepared immediately.
Sounds like the doc isn't finished and should be sent back for the proposed addition of new substantive material and the appropriate list given the opportunity to comment, then back to the IESG and then to the RFC Editor.
> --Paul Hoffman
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest