[rfc-i] "AUTH48" after format change

Larry Masinter masinter at adobe.com
Wed Feb 17 08:46:58 PST 2016

My apologies if this has been addressed.

I wonder if the 'AUTH48' part of the RFC publication process and procedures will need changing because of the much larger set of things that need to be checked.

As it is, when doin complex layout for HTML and PDF opens the possibility of tooling errors or more clerical errors.

I could see

a) changing Last Call notices to call out the expectation to review formatted editions as well

b) extending the time

c) extending the scope of final-final reviewers

d) RFC editor assigning more review resources

e) changing the rule that doesn't allow corrections (to the non-XML outputs) after publication.

By "tooling" "clerical errors" I mean

Of the RFCs I've worked on, there have been tooling errors

(RFC 2616 Errata ID: 1619, where for some reason Word-to-text dropped the first character of each line)

and another case where a new RFC was issued because the date was the wrong year

and clerical errors, for example RFC 4395 was listed as BCP 115 instead of BCP 35





Larry Masinter<http://larry.masinter.net/>
I'm reorganizing my web presence. You can still see my previous home page which hasn't changed style since 1997. I'm experimenting with WordPress, about.me, and a few ...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20160217/96ee50f5/attachment.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list