[rfc-i] gen area wg on IETF process changes for new format?

On 2014/07/13 05:19, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Larry,
>
> I prefer the word "procedure" to "process" because I don't think
> that there are any changes to the formal process rules needed.

Me too. I also think that the examples below (I won't pick on any one of 
them individually) are all really minor, and if we can't find anything 
bigger, I think a WG would be overkill.

Regards,   Martin.

> Apart from that, I think having a well-defined forum for the
> discussion - including tool chain aspects as far as they affect
> WG and IESG procedures - is a good idea (nearer the time: starting
> it now would be confusing, I think).
>
> Regards
>     Brian
>
> On 13/07/2014 03:52, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> As IETF processes seem to be out of scope for the RFC editor discussion...
>>
>> Is it premature to suggest a (General Area) working group to consider IETF process changes that are either  (a) necessary or (b) enabled  by the RFC Editor change in canonical format?
>>
>> It seems like some IETF process changes might be necessary, and also, there are other options which might require a process change.
>>
>> Don't pick on these, they're just examples: Necessary changes might include "insure that last call review has reviewed the figures" or "extend AUTH48 so editors can review the more extensive RFC editor formatting".  Optional changes might include "Authors are encouraged to mark up normative statements and use &MUST; &MAY; &SHOULD; for features".
>>
>>
>>   Larry
>> --
>> http://larry.masinter.net
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>