Re: [Rfced-future] AUTH48 and editing before approval (was: Re: Welcome to the RFC Editor Future Development Program)

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 2, 2020, at 8:30 PM, Christian Huitema <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 4/2/2020 5:11 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>>> Second, my concern (and, if I understood Christian's note, at
>>> least part of his) is that we have too many documents that get
>>> to the end of community review during Last Call and then change
>>> enough via IESG action or RPC efforts to be only barely
>>> recognizable as the same document.  The changes may be
>>> substantive ones that the IESG considers minor or the writing
>>> styles or skills in writing technical English of some authors
>>> may have required major rewrites of paragraphs or sections by
>>> the RPC.  I've rarely seen either cause harm, but the fact
>>> remains that the community is signing off on one document and
>>> then a different document is being published.  At least in
>>> principle, that is a risk and maybe se should be thinking about
>>> it and whether adjustments are in order (with the understanding
>>> that reordering the editing and approval processes is not the
>>> only option).
>> In the IETF, WG chairs, review teams, and ADs all have a role in turning back documents that are so poorly written that they need more that just copy editing.  I know that I have tried to do this in my working groups.  It is hard to tell someone that their document needs mush more work to be ready to progress, but that is the right place to apply the judgement.
>> 
>> The RFC Editor ought to be able to tell the approving stream that the document is not ready for copy editing as well.  I understand that the RFC Production Center is very reluctant to do that.
> How is "your document needs mush more work to be ready to progress" any different from "I found five attacks that your security considerations do not address" ?
> 

The first is a statement about the clarity of the writing in the document.  The second is a statement about the technical quality of the document.  I do not expect the RFC Editor to make the second assessment.

Russ