RE: LC on draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



John Klensin wrote:
> Stephen, I routinely complain about too much editing -- if not
> on every document I submit for RFC publication, at least most of
> them.   I believe that, in the last couple of years there has
> been a trend toward more editing that I consider gratuitous,
> e.g., changing one correct and consistent style to another one.
> So I may well be the source of some of the complaints you heard.
> On the other hand, I'm appalled by the editorial and
> presentation quality of some of the documents that I've seen go
> to the RFC Editor, even after Last Call and IESG signoff.  
> 
> In my opinion, absent something that the document skirts, the
> "current highly restrictive reading" goes much too far.  Yes, I
> understand the desire to counterbalance both natural tendencies
> and some history of over-editing.  But, to the extent to which
> this document is expected, post-last-call, to form part of the
> basis for solicitation of people who are interested in doing the
> job and selection from among those people, and then of a
> contract with the selected party, I believe it goes _much_ too
> far: that degree of restrictiveness is simply not what we want
> or need, IMO.

Do you have any suggested text?  What I am hearing is something like be frugal in changes except when the document needs it, which IMHO doesn't seem to help.

Stephen

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]