On Dec 22, 2009, at 8:39 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Brian,
>
> This seems worth being a bit pedantic about, to make sure we all share the
> same understanding: I take your interpretation to mean that the RFC Editor
> can, on their own initiative, fix the problem(s) that Julan has raised and
> that it does not require changes to the about-to-be-published document.
>
>
> Is that correct? Do others agree? (I hope so.)
>
FWIW, I do. As long as those changes are stylistic, editorial, and not so
substantive that they cause the various streams to be uneasy with those changes.
And in reply to Brian:
> Maybe we^H^Hthe IAB should have aimed at full delegation of the boilerplate,
> exactly as for the Trust-maintained boilerplate.
That is what I intended with: I believe that in the future such efforts should
be pulled by the RSE, with IAB oversight and not by the IAB with RFC-Editor
input
--Olaf (personal title)
> d/
>
> On 12/22/2009 11:23 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> FWIW, the document allows the RFC editor some headway in maintaining the
>>> language in the style guide.
> ...
>> For now, there are indeed weasel words such as:
>> "However, this is not
>> intended to specify a single, static format. Details of formatting
>> are decided by the RFC Editor."
>>
>> "These paragraphs will need to be
>> defined and maintained as part of RFC stream definitions. Initial
>> text, for current streams, is provided below."
>>
>> I think this gives the RSE, in conjunction with the tools maintainers,
>> reasonable flexibility.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
________________________________________________________
Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs
Science Park 140,
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
