On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:48:43 -0400 John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Personally, I don't even like RFC Editor notes for things that can and should be corrected by the author. As both an author and an AD, I much preferred clean new copies. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf