On Dec 22, 2009, at 8:39 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Brian,
>
> This seems worth being a bit pedantic about, to make sure we all share the same understanding: I take your interpretation to mean that the RFC Editor can, on their own initiative, fix the problem(s) that Julan has raised and that it does not require changes to the about-to-be-published document.
>
>
> Is that correct? Do others agree? (I hope so.)
>
FWIW, I do. As long as those changes are stylistic, editorial, and not so substantive that they cause the various streams to be uneasy with those changes.
And in reply to Brian:
> Maybe we^H^Hthe IAB should have aimed at full delegation of the boilerplate,
> exactly as for the Trust-maintained boilerplate.
That is what I intended with: I believe that in the future such efforts should be pulled by the RSE, with IAB oversight and not by the IAB with RFC-Editor input
--Olaf (personal title)
> d/
>
> On 12/22/2009 11:23 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> FWIW, the document allows the RFC editor some headway in maintaining the language in the style guide.
> ...
>> For now, there are indeed weasel words such as:
>> "However, this is not
>> intended to specify a single, static format. Details of formatting
>> are decided by the RFC Editor."
>>
>> "These paragraphs will need to be
>> defined and maintained as part of RFC stream definitions. Initial
>> text, for current streams, is provided below."
>>
>> I think this gives the RSE, in conjunction with the tools maintainers,
>> reasonable flexibility.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
________________________________________________________
Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs
Science Park 140,
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf