Hi John,
On 2008-08-10 23:32 John C Klensin said the following:
--On Sunday, August 10, 2008 9:14 AM -0700 Dave Crocker
...
And note that the normative "should" language in the
Checklist, here, might be
considered stronger than what is actually said in the RFC
Editor's policy
document. (One can debate this, but then, that debate is
exactly what we ought
to have, based on hard data like this. My own opinion is that
the "should" is
appropriate here, in terms of actual practice, and it's long
been what I advise folk writing drafts.)
And this is precisely one of the examples to which I was
referring, because, in exceptional circumstances, the RFC Editor
has been willing to negotiate that limit. However, if my memory
is correct, the "nits" checker, which draws its authority from
the Checklist, gets sufficiently annoyed about more than five
authors to prevent posting of I-Ds.
Umm???
If you're referring to idnits, it does no test the number of authors
in any way or form. I haven't checked whether the current, soon-to
be replaced submission tool tries to check this, but idnits does
most emphatically not.
Henrik
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf