[rfc-i] Technical changes after AUTH48

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Oct 16 08:55:25 PDT 2012

On 16/10/2012 16:33, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> "kicked back" is less crisp and clear than your normal terminology.
> Are you proposing that another revision of the draft needs to be prepared, run by the WG, and taken through IETF Last Call? Or simply that the WG and relevant ADs need to buy in to the proposed changes? Or something else?

I think there are precedents for both. The underlying point is that the RFC Editor and
some other people such as the document editor, the AD, and the document shepherd, cannot
arbitrarily change the technical consensus that's been through Last Call and the
IESG ballot. They can (IMHO) fix obvious small technical errors, but adding a state
definitely needs a nod from the WG.

I don't think that *requires* a new draft, but a new draft might be the easiest
way. However, it definitely requires a notification to the WG with a (short) time
to raise objections.

Much better that, than an appeal later.

This is all an IETF discussion, of course.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list