[rfc-i] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-rfc-author-guide-00.txt

Paul Hoffman / VPNC paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Sep 3 12:41:04 PDT 2004

At 12:00 PM -0600 9/3/04, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>I believe the approach you are documenting is fundamentally wrong in 
>IETF context.

I hope you are saying that you believe that the RFC Editor should do 
something different, not that you think that I should not be 
documenting what the RFC Editor does today. I believe it is critical 
for RFC authors to know what is expected of them.

>  IMHO, RFC Editor SHOULD NOT accept drafts that require modifications.

Then you should start a different thread on this mailing list about 
that. My document describes what I believe is true today; you want 
something else to be true tomorrow. Obviously, if your proposal is 
adopted, what I write will need to be significantly rewritten.

>  Nor should IESG review such drafts, for that matter.

Then you should start a different thread with the IESG.

>  It should be authors responsibility to comply with all the rules, 
>without spending precious IETF resources.

That is precisely why I am trying to write a clearer document about 
the rules. Your view (change the rules and make them more strict) is 
another approach.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list