Re: Guidelines for authors and reviewers

SM wrote:

> Quoting RFC 2555:

Hopefully we'll get a 5555 next year :-)

> The Tao has an air of formality in some places.

Mostly limited to appendix B, though. 

> In Section 1:
> 
>    "An Internet Draft's life cycle begins when the author(s) 
>     submit the document as an individual submission"

> That may lead to some confusion with independent submissions.
> It may be better to have:

>    "An Internet Draft's life cycle begins when the author(s)
>     submit the document as a personal draft; it may become a
>     Working Group draft

Dunno, independent drafts are non-IETF by definition, using one
adjective "individual" everywhere at least doesn't add to any
existing confusion about "individual" vs. "independent" drafts.
Example:

> In Section 3.1:
> 
>    "There are several persons who can respond to a received
>     review.  If the document is an individual document"

> I suggest using the same term as the RFC Editor.
> 
>     There are several persons who can respond to a received
>     review.  If the document is an independent submission

But the guidelines are for IETF drafts, that's either WG draft
or individual, but not independent.  Ignoring IAB drafts and
IRTF drafts for the moment, anyway not the audience for these
guidelines.

 Frank

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf