[rfc-i] More-than-editorial changes in AUTH48

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu Nov 19 12:55:39 PST 2009

On 2009-11-20 08:08, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
>> ...
>> Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> At 8:38 AM -0800 11/19/09, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>> If it's too late to make these changes as a group, then it's also
>>>> inappropriate to consider them as AUTH48. They're not merely typographic
>>>> or grammatical; they underly the discussion on which the consensus is based.
>>> The IESG often purposely delays more-than-editorial document changes
>>> until AUTH48; why should the IAB be held to different standards?
>> The same standards should apply. IMO, if the changes represent community
>> consensus, then no problem. If not - if they represent only the
>> interests of the IAB, IESG, or any thing less than an open community
>> discussion, then I disagree that they should be allowed.
>> ...
> Out of curiosity: how would the RFC Editor find out whether a change has 
> community consensus in case the community wasn't asked?

I really don't think that's the Editor's job. Of course, it might be
something that a member of the editorial team chooses to do as a member
of the community.

The correct redress here would be an appeal against the party that
requested a non-editorial change without establishing consensus.
Yes, it's a bit late if the RFC is already posted, but that's
the case regardless of when such a change creeps into an RFC.
There's nothing special about AUTH48.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list