On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request to consider Instructions to Request for > > Comments (RFC) Authors <draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04.txt> as a BCP. > > This has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF > > Working Group. > > a very important thing to note > ------------------------------ > > [10] Eastlake, D. and E. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names", RFC > 2606, June 1999. > ==> hopefully this isn't the reference practise, should be s/E. > Panitz/Panitz, E./, right? > > This seems to be happening with almost all the drafts, with the last of > multiauthor lists, so I'm fearing a bug in the tools? > > (of course, tools aren't the problem of IESG, RFC-ED etc. as such, but > should be noted and corrected ASAP.) After getting a few private clarifying remarks (thanks!), I'd like to expand this a bit. It seems this reference model is a "tradition" of a kind. However, now that the RFC-ed policies are being re-reviewed, it should be excellent time to fix problems, with all due respect. Unless, of course, there was some particular point to always writing the _last_ author (and that only) wrong (in the case that author-count > 1). -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings