[rfc-i] Comments in the canonical RFCs
nico at cryptonector.com
Mon May 12 10:43:23 PDT 2014
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
> On May 12, 2014, at 10:12 AM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
>> <rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>>> And this basically covers my concern and intent regarding comments in
>>> the canonical version of an RFC. On the balance, comments within the
>>> canonical file cause more problems than they solve. If someone needs to
>>> comment on the XML used, WG or author notes to future -bis authors, or
>>> offer some other minor clarifying point, I think that correctly belongs
>>> in the draft, not the final RFC.
>> Ah yes, the RFC-Editor can always publish one more -NN draft, strip
>> out all XML comments, then publish the RFC. A very simple solution.
> But a very wrong one. It would be completely inappropriate for the RFC Editor to publish a draft under the authors' names.
It publishes RFC under their names...
More information about the rfc-interest