[rfc-i] Technical changes after AUTH48

Loa Andersson loa at pi.nu
Tue Oct 16 07:56:02 PDT 2012


Ray,

it depends a bit on how you define "stage".

It is clear that as the part of the exchange between authors and
the RFC Editor, the RFC Editor might ask the AD, shepherd or the wg
chairs if a certain change is OK. My take is that the RFC Editor
normally err on the conservative side; which is very good.

However, it is nothing that stops us from having a wg (wglc) or IETF
(IETF last call) to confirm the change, while the RFC Editor holds the
document in the "stage" it hs reached.

If you however by "stage" mean "state" in the RFC Editor process, then I
think you are right.

I think that the most straightforward thing to do if the there are
technical in AUTH48 is to send it back to the AD or the working group.

/Loa

On 2012-10-16 16:44, Pelletier Ray wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Ray
>
>
>
>
>>
>> --Paul Hoffman
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                         email: loa.andersson at ericsson.com
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa at pi.nu
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                              +46 767 72 92 13


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list