RE: [Techspec] Editorial notes on draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt

"Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" <stephen.hayes@ericsson.com> Fri, 26 May 2006 00:48 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjQVR-0007VE-DE; Thu, 25 May 2006 20:48:45 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjQVQ-0007V8-5h for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 20:48:44 -0400
Received: from imr2.ericy.com ([198.24.6.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjQVO-00035B-SO for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 20:48:44 -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 k4Q101An023083; Thu, 25 May 2006 20:00:01 -0500
Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <LB9HXNYG>; Thu, 25 May 2006 19:48:42 -0500
Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003802E17C9A@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] Editorial notes on draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 19:48:35 -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: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
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

Paul Hoffman wrote
>     o  Req-PREEDIT-1: The IETF technical publisher should perform an
>        editorial review of documents before WG last call and provide
>        feedback to the authors to improve quality of the 
> documents.  This
>        review should strive to maintain consistency in appearance with
>        previously published documents.
> The phrase "should perform" is quite different than "should support". 
> It seems that the consensus was that this should be done, so "should 
> perform" is correct.

I agree, the current wording is too strong.  Even if IETF decides to go down the pre-approval review route, it is not clear what documents you would use it on.  It is certainly a stretch to assume all WG docs would be pre-approved.  It is also unclear that it is only WG docs that could have pre-approval review.  I will change the wording to indicate that is it something the technical publisher should do when requested by appropriate technical representatives.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> 

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