--On Monday, August 11, 2008 11:07 AM +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So I withdraw my suggestion and comments but strongly suggest
that you make sure that your intentions for the document and
those of the IESG are in synch before proceeding much further.
I'd like to say that both as an author and as a reviewer, I
have always found both the ID checklist and the IDnits checker
to be of immense pragmatic value.
I agree. I've just had a painful recent experience (not the
first one) in which some overzealous person has assumed that
some provision of one or the other is actually a firm rule and
proceeded to try to enforce it in some draconian fashion. I
don't believe that is wise, appropriate, or healthy. So I'm
trying to be sure that the Checklist is clear about both its
overall intent and the strength of any guidelines it presents in
the hope of preventing that sort of behavior in the future.
Obviously, if the checklist
or the checker complains about something that isn't obviously
a bug, the author, shepherd, AD or reviewer will have to enter
"think" mode or even "negotiate" mode. I agree that it's a
good idea to be clear about that.
Either "think" mode or "negotiate" mode would be a considerable
improvement over what has appeared to be "this is a rule, it is
immutable, change your document".
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf