On 9. Feb 2025, at 22:23, John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote: > > RPC review
The discussion is definitely drifting away from what I was pointing out. It’s true that we haven’t managed to pull off a way for the RPC to help improving document quality earlier in the process. But that is not what I was talking about. My observation was that there is a need to avoid late surprises in a gating function that likely to remain obscure for authors, even if words are spent writing up RPC principles for executing it that cannot take into account each individual situation. I don’t mind having a separate discussion about RPC early reviews, and how Deepthink makes that less necessary, etc., but I’d like to focus the discussion of my observation that an IANA-like cursory preview at the WG document/WGLC level and a more thorough checking at the IESG evaluation level would help avoiding late surprises. A “how do I get good graphics into my document” help desk of the RPC would also be a nice thing, but is unrelated. Grüße, Carsten -- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
