Bob Braden <braden@xxxxxxx> writes: > 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. This doesn't appear to be what is happening today -- I haven't heard any "fuss" from the RFC Editor for the GS2 changes. /Simon > 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