If I may comment from my position as ex-RSE, the RFC Editor's policy for
at least the past 10 years has been to fuss at authors who ask for
substantive changes in AUTH48, but then to follow the dictum: "better to
get it right than get it early". In other words, the RFC Editor did push
back but generally did not refuse suhstantive changes in AUTH48.
Bob Braden
John Klensin wrote, in part:
The one change that, IMO, might be worth making in this regard
would be to explicitly empower the RFC Editor to push back, if
necessary by going back to the community, if, in their judgment,
substantive changes that deviate from the approved document are
requested at AUTH48. My own view is that they have always had
the ability to do that although I don't believe it has been
exercised since the AUTH48 procedures were created. I have no
opinion as to whether there are cases in which it should have
been.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf