IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Mon, 11 August 2008 14:35 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 61FFA3A6E5E; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 07:35:19 -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 061CF3A6D5A; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 07:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 LMVYEh3ph5YA; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 07:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (mail.mipassoc.org [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A234F3A6CB8; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 07:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.3] (ppp-67-124-90-139.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.124.90.139]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7BEZHY6022259 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 07:35:17 -0700
Message-ID: <48A04E24.4090306@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 07:35:16 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
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-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/8005/Mon Aug 11 04:39:24 2008 on sbh17.songbird.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 07:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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:
  > 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. "enforce a limit"  moves a should to a must.

2. The RFC Editor's policy document does not use language that is as strong as a 
should.

Hence, the ID Checklist is making a normative statement stronger than the RFC 
Editor and the proposal for the checker to 'enforce' is even stronger than that.

By contrast, last sentence suggesting simply printing a notice that there are 
more authors than preferred captures the RFC Editor policy's statement.


d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email