[rfc-i] Substantial revision

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Tue May 29 15:50:23 PDT 2012

On 5/29/2012 12:28 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 29 May 2012, at 18:43 , Joe Touch wrote:
>> Change control can be useful for IDs (using the author's source, which might support revision), but very few RFCs are ever "bis'd", and benefit from a clean-slate revision more than mere incremental editing. I.e., revision support may be useful for author source, but isn't relevant for either the submission or output formats.
> Sometimes wgs replace authors. It would be good if a new author can continue working on the version of a draft that was submitted rather than redo some of the work.

Sure - as it's done now, we ask the current author for source. If they 
are willing, they provide it. If it's what the new authors/editors want 
to use, it's retained; if not, it gets converted.

But this is afield of the issue of needing to support post-submission 
formats that are editing-friendly.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list