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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Monday, August 11, 2008 11:07 AM +1200 Brian E Carpenter 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> So I withdraw my suggestion and comments but strongly suggest
>> that you make sure that your intentions for the document and
>> those of the IESG are in synch before proceeding much further.
>
> I'd like to say that both as an author and as a reviewer, I
> have always found both the ID checklist and the IDnits checker
> to be of immense pragmatic value.

I agree.   I've just had a painful recent experience (not the 
first one) in which some overzealous person has assumed that 
some provision of one or the other is actually a firm rule and 
proceeded to try to enforce it in some draconian fashion.  I 
don't believe that is wise, appropriate, or healthy.   So I'm 
trying to be sure that the Checklist is clear about both its 
overall intent and the strength of any guidelines it presents in 
the hope of preventing that sort of behavior in the future.

> Obviously, if the checklist
> or the checker complains about something that isn't obviously
> a bug, the author, shepherd, AD or reviewer will have to enter
> "think" mode or even "negotiate" mode. I agree that it's a
> good idea to be clear about that.

Either "think" mode or "negotiate" mode would be a considerable 
improvement over what has appeared to be "this is a rule, it is 
immutable, change your document".

     john

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