IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 11 August 2008 08:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E413A6A0E; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BB93A6A0E for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.783, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XfZIEDbpnq13 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4DA553A69AF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 11 Aug 2008 08:28:19 -0000
Received: from p508FC9BF.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.22]) [80.143.201.191] by mail.gmx.net (mp018) with SMTP; 11 Aug 2008 10:28:19 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19vj5N8nkxvI1IMZ1bgdtF5aUPr1RicGs6zVt2UkC OWQ40nCjPvVrjo
Message-ID: <489FF821.9070309@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:28:17 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
References: <D78EAB64AF674E24B2199B2C1DBDA1FE@BertLaptop> <489F13F2.3060707@dcrocker.net> <72963A021589CE51C5AFB967@[192.168.1.110]> <489F71B1.80100@levkowetz.com> <9B6E255474F2CDD02B76D19B@[192.168.1.110]> <489FF6A3.5000501@levkowetz.com>
In-Reply-To: <489FF6A3.5000501@levkowetz.com>
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.72
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> ...
> Ok.  Which leaves establishing the desired behaviour of the draft
> submission mechanisms. 
> My personal viewpoint is that it would be inappropriate to strictly
> enforce a limit of 5 authors.  The use of 'should' in section 2.2,
> item 2 of the current document ('There should not be more than 5
> authors/editors') seems appropriate given the current RFC Editor
> policy, and tools-wise this would then be implemented as a note or
> warning at the most, but should never cause a refusal to accept a draft
> submission.
> ...

+1

BR, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email