[rfc-i] Technical changes after AUTH48

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Wed Oct 17 10:15:15 PDT 2012

On 10/16/12 7:40 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again. While we are waiting for Heather and Nevil to publish their updated draft, here is a completely unrelated topic.
> In an IETF WG, there was a -bis document that took forever to get published because technical suggestions trickled in and it was never clear when they were done. The trickle continued through IETF LC. They have continued *after* IESG approval. The document is now in RFC-EDITOR state.
> ...and it now has three technical changes that the authors want applied during AUTH48. These are not small changes: a protocol state is added, a list of states that require an action needs additions, and an appendix that had a complicated descriptive figure is removed.
> Should making these kinds of changes be acceptable? I ask this hoping that the answer is "yes" because I care about the particular document and am distressed that it has taken so long to get published, but if the RFC Editor is going to disallow the changes, the WG should know early so that a -ter document can be prepared immediately.
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________

While the RFC Editor is not a judge of technological merit, publishing
a document with known technical issues concerns me.  That said, judging
whether changes offered to fix technical issues in a document are
significant enough that it should go back for stream selected review is
not in the RFC Editor purview.  That is a matter for stream policy.

-Heather Flanagan, RSE

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list