Allison Mankin wrote: > > > Potential Req-POSTCORR-3 - The IETF technical publisher should > > > > > > have the discretion to reject post-approval > corrections as too > > > > > > late in the process and propose that it be handled > as errata. > > > This is an open issue I will raise at the techspec BOF. > > I see as the not the IETF technical publisher's discretion. > > I would see this as the IETF's policy determination and an Area > Director determining. The technical publisher could propose > errata but the document shepherd and the final greenlighter > of the document (currently the AD) should be the ones who > exercise the technical discretion. They should strongly > respect the technical publisher's motivation in pushing > back post-approval corrections, but not give up their technical > accountability. My view. > > Allison > I agree. The IETF should have final say. The question is how to engineer the process so that the technical publisher's objection and the IETF decision to proceed anyway (or take it back and process) is documented and the decision doesn't fall through the cracks.
If the publisher highlights a problem, then the publication of the document should be put on hold. Until the IETF decides what to do with the publisher's objection it is premature to publish the document either with or without the offending changes. The IETF can decide to tell the publisher to: 1. Publish without the changes 2. Publish with all or some subset of the changes 3. Take the document out of the queue to allow rework in IETF. So having the technical publisher reject the offending changes (which is what I had proposed earlier) is insufficient because it implies that publication goes ahead without the offending changes. Having the technical publisher just highlight the concerns to the IETF and proceed with including them and publishing is also inappropriate. So what we need is a state in the publication process where the publication is on hold awaiting feedback from the IETF. This hold shouldn't count against the publisher's performance statistics. My revised opinion (after further thought) Stephen Stephen _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
