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

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dave,

On 2008-08-11 16:35 Dave Crocker said the following:
> 
> 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.

Yes, but nobody is arguing that this should be done...

> 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.

Repeating myself in a new context:  Umm??

I didn't propose that the checker enforce such a limit, and I'm not aware of
anyone else proposing it, thus I don't understand why you seem to argue against
a proposal nobody seems to have made.  Have I misunderstood what you seem to
be saying immediately above, or have you misunderstood my position?

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

I think you are saying that this makes sense?  If so, I think we're in agreement.


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