Thanks for improved editing function over at the rfc-editor
Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Tue, 22 April 2014 00:11 UTC
Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8531A0329 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 17:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.664
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ypoG-JycslwL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 17:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708DD1A0321 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 17:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3841206D7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:10:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.suchdamage.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GhB4UpJ4GPhh for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:10:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (c-50-177-27-27.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [50.177.27.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:10:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 787B981B8A; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:11:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Thanks for improved editing function over at the rfc-editor
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:11:33 -0400
Message-ID: <tsloazuxlxm.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XRLxnaSg2spcwo0h-Tj_ZXSInZQ
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:08:31 -0700
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:11:45 -0000
I've been through a number of auth48s lately and I just noticed that the editing process that the RFC editor is using introduces significantly fewer errors than it used to. Back ind the 2004-2007 era, it was actually very common to see authors objecting to a number of auth48 changes. I saw this in my own documents as well as documents in my area. I see fewer documents these days, but I do see enough documents that I have confidence in my claim that the auth48 process seems to be much smoother than it used to be. This is really nice. Thanks for the ongoing great work.
- Thanks for improved editing function over at the … Sam Hartman
- Re: Thanks for improved editing function over at … Martin Thomson