RE: [Techspec] Post-edit tracking

"Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" <stephen.hayes@ericsson.com> Thu, 25 May 2006 04:41 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj7eq-00005X-QX; Thu, 25 May 2006 00:41:12 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj7ep-00005S-PQ for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 00:41:11 -0400
Received: from imr2.ericy.com ([198.24.6.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj7eo-00058T-EV for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 00:41:11 -0400
Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k4P4qQtF026374; Wed, 24 May 2006 23:52:26 -0500
Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <LB9HW06Q>; Wed, 24 May 2006 23:41:09 -0500
Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003802DE263B@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se>
From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" <stephen.hayes@ericsson.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, techspec@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Techspec] Post-edit tracking
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 23:41:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
Cc:
X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" <techspec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec>, <mailto:techspec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/techspec>
List-Post: <mailto:techspec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:techspec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec>, <mailto:techspec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org

All the requirements use the "should" language.  It is hard to actually mandate anything since what the publisher will do is ultimately determined by the contract.

Stephen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman@vpnc.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:17 PM
> To: techspec@ietf.org
> Subject: [Techspec] Post-edit tracking
> 
> 
> In section 3.3:
>     o  Req-POSTEDIT-2 - All changes made to post-approval documents
>        should be tracked and the changes must be signed off on by the
>        appropriate technical representatives as defined in the IETF
>        processes.
> Why is this a "should" instead of a "must"? For something as 
> important as changes made after the WG and IESG reviews, it would 
> seem that tracking and sign-off would be mandatory.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Techspec mailing list
> Techspec@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
> 

_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
Techspec@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec