Bob,
I hope we all agree with that. There can be a difficulty, however,
if the apparently obvious and correct technical fix actually has
implications beyond the obvious that might be picked up by renewed
WG discussion or even a repeat Last Call.
But I think we would be foolish to legislate on this or to mandate
the overhead of a new draft in every case. Let's leave it to the
judgment of the RSE, document authors, shepherd and cognizant AD to
decide if wider discussion is needed in a particular case.
Brian
On 2010-04-23 08:23, Bob Braden wrote:
>
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf