Julian Reschke wrote: > I'm tempted to say that if it takes the authors months to update the > document with the suggested change, then, well, a publication delay of > several months is what they deserve :-). The only problem with this comment is that some readers might think the smiley means you (and Paul) weren't being completely serious. It is always tempting to look for a way to have the administrative infrastructure make things easier. In fact, as I re-read that sentence, I'm struck by how silly it might seem to want anything else. The problem is that "easier" often isn't, when it entails adding mechanism to the infrastructure. (Hmmmm. I seem to recall learning that concern about user-vs-infrastructure from the design of Internet technology...) Let's have the tools and processes help where they have to, and where things are strictly mechanical, but let's not have them remove basic responsibility from those who produce the content. For one thing, we want to avoid making it too easy to have no one paying complete attention to the changes in the document. In the spirit of the general goal to move as much work as plausible down to the working group, the authors should make the required changes, before the document is passed to the RFC Editor. Give the RFC Editor a completely clean version. If it takes months, then that is a measure of the working group's motivation to get the document published... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf