On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Ben Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Jul 5, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Taking a page from Benoit's playbook, here is a diff from RFC7613: >> https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-08.txt&url2=https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7613.txt >> (I feel really stupid for not re >> alizing this earlier, but diff'ing a -bis from >> the base RFC is a: obvious and b: really useful for understanding which bits >> need more review) > > Thanks go to the authors for making the -bis easily “diff-able” from the RFC.
Indeed. I intended to thank them as well, but forgot. > Not everyone does that. I’ve been debating whether we should consider some > guidance to -bis authors to avoid unnecessary changes that make it difficult > to review the changes. (e.g. stylistic changes, unnecessary reorganization, > etc.) > That would be helpful, and is non-obvious to many authors. Many people seem to feel that they should make gratuitous changes to show that they "did stuff". W -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
