On 14-Apr-21 08:01, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> said:
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>> I believe it is important for the IETF to say something that has the force of IETF consensus behind it. Instructions to the RFC Editor have not, and I would
>> be against doing so in this case because the lack of consensus makes the editorial changes less well-justified.
>>
>> If the consensus is that we should not do this, I would be highly disappointed, but I would accept it as a consensus decision.
>
> Language policing is not part of the RFC Editor's job.
That may be true today, but when we have a new regime for the RFC Series model it might change, or at least, this whole issue might become part of the style guide.
> If the IETF wants to set language standards, that is fine,
s/standards/guidelines/
> but it is up to the IETF itself to follow and if need be enforce those standards, not anyone else.
I hope you would apply that statement to all RFC streams, not just the IETF stream.
Regards
Brian
