IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 02 April 2020 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECAB73A1619 for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 08:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YXKaKhSbZ8ua for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 08:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8E1A3A1618 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 08:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AA6B300B5A for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 11:52:15 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id IiPBJT76nnXS for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 11:52:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-72-66-113-56.washdc.fios.verizon.net [72.66.113.56]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 889B9300A93; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 11:52:13 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <75FEFDC1BB902A9091739F47@PSB>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 11:52:14 -0400
Cc: rfced-future@iab.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DF85BBBB-B9D3-4852-89FC-0B971548A905@vigilsec.com>
References: <d95d9ca5-77d4-490d-1fe7-35b20db01016@joelhalpern.com> <4BC58577-8CC7-48CB-803F-F4E6E080188B@huitema.net> <75FEFDC1BB902A9091739F47@PSB>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/NZ-ftcSWL5OeE_RK-PVdYCYvcNk>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] AUTH48 and editing before approval (was: Re: Welcome to the RFC Editor Future Development Program)
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 15:52:19 -0000


> On Apr 1, 2020, at 11:51 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> (I've changed the subject line because I really hope we can
> split this off and either set it aside until other work is
> finished or find another way to handle it as an issue.)
> 
> --On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 19:30 -0700 Christian Huitema
> <huitema@huitema.net> wrote:
> 
>> I did not write that we should remove copy editing. But we
>> could certainly find models in which it happens before
>> approval, not after it.

The IESG approval process almost always leads to changes based in DISCUSS or COMMENT.  Sometimes these are technical changes.  We should not do copy edits until the technical document is stable.  That is exactly where the copy editing is in the current process.

We did a few process experiments where the RFC Editor was invited to do copy edits earlier in the process.  Theses experiments did not reduce the review, approval, or final copy editing times significantly.  My conclusion is that the copy editing is in the right place in the process.

The use of the diff files has made the copy edit review MUCH easier that it used to be.  I'd be very happy to explore what other tools could make it even easier.

Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email