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