--On Tuesday, 02 September, 2008 14:28 -0500 Spencer Dawkins <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > OK... > >>> Summary: This document is very close to ready for >>> publication as a Proposed >>> Standard. I have two technical comments below, but both are >>> minor issues that could resolved in AUTH48 if you think they >>> have merit. >> >> An aside: The purpose of AUTH48 state is not (should not be) >> to resolve even minor issues. Ideally, no issues should >> arise in AUTH48, but the world is not a perfect place. But >> let's not get in the habit of sweeping minor changes to the >> every end of the publication process. The revision process >> is pretty cheap. > > Agreed. I've been seeing a lot of Gen-ART reviewers, including > myself, who say "could be resolved in AUTH48" as a unit of > size, but I can see how reasonable people assume that it's a > suggestion of tactics :-) > > Thanks for the opportunity to break old habits when they > become even less reasonable. Spencer, It occurs to me that people may have been saying "could be resolved in AUTH48" when they really meant "could be resolved in an RFC Editor note". While, like Paul, I tend to prefer that the RFC Editor get clean copy, there is a huge difference between "IESG makes a note to the RFC Editor about a desired editorial fix" or "IESG makes a note to the Author/Editor about a desired editorial fix so it can be incorporated into the clean copy that goes to the RFC Editor" and anything having to do with AUTH48. The former two are pre-editing and allow opportunities for discussion of any proposed changes that appear to be unreasonable. Requesting that changes be made at AUTH48 time is just, IMO, an opportunity for mistakes and/or abuse. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf