Subject: RE: RFC-Editor 48-hour process (was: Input solicited: IETF probl em pi npointing at the plenary?)

From: "Presuhn, Randy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:57:51 -0600

Hi -

> From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 13:30
> To: Spencer Dawkins
> Cc: Carsten Bormann; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: RFC-Editor 48-hour process (was: Input solicited: IETF
> problem pi npointing at the plenary?)
...
> CVS would make sense if we got to work on the *source*.  For
> RFCs, this
> means nroff, folks...
...

I would *love* to have been able to describe corrections during
the last round of RFC-edits in nroff terms.  When there are problems
with layout, indentation, and so on, it'd be much easier than sending
text diffs back and forth.

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 [email-masked]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:25:50 -0800

> text diffs back and forth.

Hi Randy-

FYI, the RFC Editor prefers to have the AUTH48 changes submitted in
the OLD:..., NEW:... format to make it easier to ensure that no
technical (i.e., substantive) changes get slipped in at the last
minute.  There have been times in the past where this has occured and
it allows the relevant AD to be flagged to gain their approval.

--aaron (who is supporting the RFC Editor)