--On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 08:27 -0500 Pete Resnick
<presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 1. Make the changes in (A). We still need to say how to make
>>> that happen, and how to deal with the increased number of
>>> RFCs.
>>
>> The annual review provides an alternative to deal with the
>> increased number of (non-historic) RFCs. A "no substantive
>> objection" clause might enable the removal of "drive-by"
>> RFCs.
>
> My concern was not the absolute number of RFCs. It is that, if
> we go back to something like 2026 criteria for Proposed, we
> should expect a bunch more revisions of RFCs (since we will
> find bugs that need to be fixed), and that may put an awful
> lot of pressure on the RFC Editor. Because the changes are
> likely to only be specific bug fixes and not total rewrites,
> perhaps the RFC Editor might be OK with only checking the new
> parts and not worrying about the old ones. But this is not
> addressed at all in the current document and needs to be
Concur.
I do believe that, for Proposed Standards only, adopting a rule
that only changes are examined when recycling in grade could
reasonably be applied to the RFC Editor as well as IETF review.
However, I think it is workable only if:
-- There is some sort of exception procedure that can be applied
when good sense requires it. For example, while our normal
practice is that the editor of a spec is the editor of a
revision of that spec, there are exceptions. The exceptions can
involve sufficiently large changes in style that not editing the
whole document could produce a result that is very hard to read
and understand.
-- Any sort of "tolerate editorially-poor documents" strategy,
whether involving "edit only changes" as you suggest above,
"accept less-than-ideal writing style as long as the protocol
intent is clear" as suggested in my comments, or something else
needs to have a clear point at which we apply a different set of
expectations. I believe that ought to be the second level in
the standards process (whatever that is called). However the
line is drawn, I don't think we can have an expectation of
high-quality finished documents, fast approval and publishing of
Proposed Standards, and little editing work on documents going
to the second level
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf