[rfc-i] [IAB] draft-iab-xml2rfc-03, "1.3.3 Elements and Attributes Deprecated from v2"

Paul Kyzivat pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Wed Mar 16 10:32:30 PDT 2016

On 3/16/16 1:07 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> That said, I believe every Internet-Draft should have an editorial note
> saying how feedback should be provided, and where the editor's copy
> resides... (and yes, most authors don't, and I really have no idea why...)

The point about feedback makes sense to me, but why is the location of 
the editor's copy relevant? IMO the transition from version -nn to -nn+1 
can be viewed as an atomic action that occurs at the time version -nn+1 
is submitted.

I realize that there is an evolving practice of keeping the editor's 
copy on github and allowing multiple editors to contribute to it there, 
thus creating interim versions between -nn and -nn+1. *If* that is so, 
does it really need to be *public* if it is only for communication 
between the multiple listed authors/editors of the document?

I find it somewhat disconcerting when a reference to the github version 
is made public. It feels like it is then serving as an alternative 
process to publishing new versions. But it then requires different 
techniques to figure out what is going on, and to comment on changes. 
Such comments are not tracked in the same way and don't get the same 
level of public scrutiny.

*If* such a technique is to become mainstream then a documented set of 
tools, procedures, and policies should be created around it.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list