--On Saturday, December 30, 2006 6:00 PM -0800 Michael Thomas <mat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was using "wordsmithing" rather broadly. My probably idiosyncratic meaning of "wordsmithing" here was "will this DISCUSS change the mechanics of the protocol or not". If the answer is no, we're really just making the document more ready for publication IMO. Something that does bring that possibility is obviously a lot more serious. It's been my admittedly limited experience that my version of "wordsmithing" is a lot more common, and the source of a lot of delay to varying degrees of dubiousness.
My own personal, long-standing view, is that "clear enough to implement" together with "comprehensible, even with some effort" ought to be the requirement for Proposed, with anything more than that either after Last Call or immediately before it just being a waste of time and a poor use of resources. Personally, I'd apply a similar standard to what I expect the RFC Editor to do. While the formal procedures say nothing about this particular issue, I've got a much higher threshold for Draft: I think those documents should not require more effort to read than the underlying protocol itself requires.
From your comment above, I think that puts us in near-, if not
complete, agreement. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf