Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

On 2008-08-10 23:32 John C Klensin said the following:
> 
> --On Sunday, August 10, 2008 9:14 AM -0700 Dave Crocker 
...
>> And note that the normative "should" language in the
>> Checklist, here, might be
>> considered stronger than what is actually said in the RFC
>> Editor's policy
>> document.  (One can debate this, but then, that debate is
>> exactly what we ought
>> to have, based on hard data like this. My own opinion is that
>> the "should" is
>> appropriate here, in terms of actual practice, and it's long
>> been what I advise folk writing drafts.)
> 
> And this is precisely one of the examples to which I was 
> referring, because, in exceptional circumstances, the RFC Editor 
> has been willing to negotiate that limit.  However, if my memory 
> is correct, the "nits" checker, which draws its authority from 
> the Checklist, gets sufficiently annoyed about more than five 
> authors to prevent posting of I-Ds.

Umm???

If you're referring to idnits, it does no test the number of authors
in any way or form.  I haven't checked whether the current, soon-to
be replaced submission tool tries to check this, but idnits does
most emphatically not.


	Henrik
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf