Hi Adam (and everyone else who has chimed in on this document), I have a few comments/concerns from the point of view of the RFC Editor: *If the editors only look at changes, critical context will be missed. Part of the RFC Editor job is to ensure consistency, which means reviewing a document in the context of other items published in the series. It is unclear how we are supposed to handle a -bis document where only sections of the document are updated, potentially resulting in large questions of terminology. * I agree with Stephen Farrel’s concern regarding giving known issues a “free pass” - republishing them without changes implies endorsement. This is a reputational problem for the series. (I do see the flip side of this, however, that significant delays in updates and overall publication of material is also a repetitional hit for the series.) * I share John Klensin’s concern around what should happen with normative references ( "And, of course, none of that addresses the cases in which other documents exist that normatively reference the original RFC and whether they are automagically treated as referencing the replacement document (works for some types of changes that might be covered by your I-D but not others) or continuing to reference the older, now-obsoleted one.”). This will need to be handled with explicit guidance to the RFC Editor. * How should documents that span format and style guide eras be handled? For example, if a -bis document is updating a document that was created before there were required IANA and Security Consideration sections, should those be added? If the original document was based on .nroff and not XML, how much should the RFC Editor change/update with regards to document formatting of the original text? * My preference for all RFCs that originate from a working or research group is that the RFCs have no more than two editors, and all contributors are recorded in the contributor section. I also recognize my preference on this one is not the consensus of any document stream, and I’d rather not reopen that battle on this particular thread. That said, I am unclear on what the expectation is with regards to the author list for a -bis document. If the original authors are retained in the author list, they will be requested to respond during AUTH48. It may be simpler to move them to contributors, and have someone be assigned as an editor for the -bis document. * If there are verified editorial errata associated with sections that are not otherwise being changed during the -bis process, can/should they be fixed in the -bis document? Thanks, Heather Flanagan
