[rfc-i] Technical changes after AUTH48

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Oct 16 07:55:04 PDT 2012


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/16/12 8:49 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 7:44 AM, Pelletier Ray <rpelletier at isoc.org> 
> wrote:
> 
>> I'm surprised this question is being asked.  I thought only 
>> editorial changes were made at this stage.
> 
> Then you haven't been reading the diffs between the final drafts
> and RFCs over the years. Technical changes are made, although not 
> "often".
> 
>> 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.
> 
> This causes another delay in publishing a valuable document that
> is, in many people's eyes, already overdue. Thus my question.

In practice, this is a judgement call by the AD (is the scope of
changes reasonable, is the community consensus clear, was this just an
oversight, etc.). When in doubt, the AD confers with the WG chairs,
his or her co-AD, the IESG in general, and also raises the issue on
the WG list (if any). In my experience, area directors prefer not to
remand the spec back to the WG for another WGLC, IETF LC, IESG review,
etc., because there are a lot of cycles tied up in all that work.

Just my centigram of silver...

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlB9dUgACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyNPwCg81uhY4X/35LuCzZcesY0cpHl
nw0AnRotHccuFa8qrI2M18AiELrbuW+G
=FGji
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list