> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:03 PM > To: olaf@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07 > > Olaf Kolkman rote: > > > Personally I would like to see that whatever document > enters into the > > RFC-Production function (to use the terminology from the RFC Editor > > model[*]) has a clean copy in the repository. That allows > for a very > > clean interface between the streams and the RFC-producer. > So, I would > > argue that the result of (iv) is always posted. > > Based on my (quite short) experience as AD so far, it seems > document authors vary greatly in how fast they can update the > document and submit it (once the text has been agreed). > > I've seen this done in less than 10 minutes (sometimes before > the IESG telechat ended). I've seen cases where it has taken > several months. In cases where the time is measured in weeks > (relatively > common) or months (fortunately rare), just sending the RFC > Editor note (and not waiting for updated clean copy) saves > time, especially considering that the RFC Editor processes > documents quite fast nowadays. > > (I do agree that having a clean copy would be nice, though.) > > Best regards, > Pasi I agree with Pasi here. For a moderate or minor quantity of edits editing the notes to the RFC editor after all parties agreed on the changes is fast, efficient, and our under control - thus saving time in the majority of cases with minimal efforts. Yes, having a clean copy is better. We live however in an imperfect world. Dan _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf