I'm not sure whether I lack understanding or lack clue on this...
Basically we need to be sure we keep the equivalent of AUTH48
where the authors and AD have a final look; but if they ask
... with Brian so far, why would this be wrong ...
for excessive changes at that stage, which *does* happen,
the publisher needs to be able to say no.
... and get lost here. I'm fine with the AD saying "that change is excessive
for AUTH48" to authors, but having the technical publisher tell the AD(s, or
the IESG), "that change is excessive for AUTH48" seems like a stretch.
Maybe I have the wrong understanding of "excessive". Is "excessive" simply a
quantitative issue ("we can't possibly do that terminology change so
quickly"), or is technical judgement involved ("adding IDN support is too
big for AUTH48, and needs to be discussed within the working group")?
On the other hand we
need the publisher to stop if someone on the technical side
finds a major problem at the last moment. Whether that makes
two requirements or one, I leave to Stephen.
Brian
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
