Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org> wrote:
> With the new policy, we shift to a situation that is less
> dysfunctional, but also less predictable. Without accompanying process
> improvements, RPC policy views generally will come in as a late
> surprise: in AUTH48.
Ick.
> Maybe we can learn a bit from the way IANA considerations are handled:
> IANA provides input at the IESG approval stage. IANA also looks at
> selected documents in earlier stages, e.g., preceding physical meeting
> weeks. This allows authors and WGs to make necessary changes (and
> possibly become aware of the need to make certain decisions) earlier in
> the process.
This goes to my view that we should have an RPC editorial pass somewhere
around the WGLC/AD-Review step. In particular, I would like to keep IESG
reviewers from ever doing any kind of grammar edits.
> (**) For instance, that surgery may require introducing new terminology
> so that a concept that would be clarified in some graphics can be
> explained more verbosely (and, in effect, to the detriment of a large
> class of users of the document).
Yes, I can see this point well.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
