Re: I-D Action: draft-crocker-rfc2418bis-wgguidelines-01.txt

[Scott Bradner <[e-mail]>]

I also do not think section 1.1 would inform any reader of any changes in process that this ID proposes
if there are no changes in process than it would be fine to say that otherwise it would seem to help 
the working group participants to know what they would need to do differently

Scott

> On Oct 29, 2015, at 12:35 AM, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 10/28/2015 9:11 PM, Scott Bradner wrote:
>> imo - any document that updates an existing document (especially technical standards and process documents)
>> needs to include a section that says what the differences are between the old version and the new version so
>> that readers can find out what they need to do differently than they have been doing
>> 
>> I do not see such a section in this document
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Section 1.1 contains a general statement about the nature of changes made.
> 
> But more importantly I believe your assertion of the specifics that are
> needed is pretty much never met for any of the IETF document revisions
> I've seen over the years.
> 
> 
> d/
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net