Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > 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. Maybe this is much more of a tools than of a procedural issue? (I personally don't know the AUTH48 and editing process). If the RFC Editor would provide his edited document back to the document author in a format that can be diffed to the approved I-D with a tool like http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=approved-I-D.txt&url2=RFC-Edited-I-D.txt then it should be sufficiently easy for the document author to quickly and easily review the RFC Editor's changes and their impact. If instead, like it just happened on TLS, you get two blocks of 10 lines of Text titled "errata" with no further comment and an eyeball comparison takes 5 minutes to determine that only a closing parenthesis was added, then this makes reviewing changes pretty difficult. -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf