On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:48:43 -0400
John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It occurs to me that people may have been saying "could be
> resolved in AUTH48" when they really meant "could be resolved in
> an RFC Editor note". While, like Paul, I tend to prefer that
> the RFC Editor get clean copy, there is a huge difference
> between "IESG makes a note to the RFC Editor about a desired
> editorial fix" or "IESG makes a note to the Author/Editor about
> a desired editorial fix so it can be incorporated into the clean
> copy that goes to the RFC Editor" and anything having to do with
> AUTH48. The former two are pre-editing and allow opportunities
> for discussion of any proposed changes that appear to be
> unreasonable. Requesting that changes be made at AUTH48 time is
> just, IMO, an opportunity for mistakes and/or abuse.
Personally, I don't even like RFC Editor notes for things that can and
should be corrected by the author. As both an author and an AD, I much
preferred clean new copies.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
