Subject: [nemo] How to proceed with edits after IESG approval

From: "T.J.Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:33:02 -0500

To the NEMO WG,

Between the time the NEMO Basic Support draft was considered "ready for 
RFC" (by the working group, IETF general community, and IESG), and now 
(when it has not yet been published as an RFC), there has been a number 
of good changes, improvements, and corrections proposed. Some of them 
came this summer, and have been discussed for a while on the WG mailing 
list and at the last IETF. Others were brought up more recently, after 
the document entered the RFC Editor's Queue and as various processes 
have progressed, such as IANA assignments, and have been discussed at 
shorter length on the mailing list.

There are many valid topics listed in the Issues List; however, at this 
point the document is still proceeding through the RFC Editor's Queue, 
and the working group now has to decide how to handle these change 
while minimizing disruption. There is a wide spectrum here, ranging 
from complete rejection of all changes (hopefully deferring them until 
a later revision) at one extreme, to making the draft perfect by 
including any changes that would improve the document, in effect 
yanking it from the queue, at the other.

As WG chairs, we have to strike a balance for change control so that on 
one hand, critical problems can still be addressed so the WG does not 
publish something it will later regret, and on the other hand that the 
process doesn't cyclically extend to infinity. We have met with the 
document authors and AD to discuss this, and we have been instructed 
that the AUTH48 process (i.e. the only remaining chance to affect the 
text of the eventual RFC) is intended to make typographical fixes, 
updates to contact info, etc., and is not intended as a general editing 
phase. We are to err on the side of conservatism. Remember, this is the 
first draft of the RFC and will not be 100.0000% perfect.

To reach the best conclusion, we are asking the document authors to 
classify the list of changes according to severity/impact and what 
can/should be addressed at this point, deferring the rest of the 
changes for the revision (-bis) process which many RFCs go through. 
There will be more info presented at the meeting tomorrow.

Thanks,

			-TJ & Thierry

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 06:52:41 +0100

T.J.Kniveton wrote:
> process doesn't cyclically extend to infinity.

Let me add to this.

We should also question whether we'd better like a short RFC with an 
easily countable number of issues or a bigger RFC with uncountable issues.

Alex

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:34:09 -0800

T.J.Kniveton wrote:

> can/should be addressed at this point, deferring the rest of the changes 
> for the revision (-bis) process which many RFCs go through. There will 
> be more info presented at the meeting tomorrow.

here are the changes classified into various categories.

http://people.nokia.net/vijayd/nemo/changes.html

let me know if there are any comments.

Vijay

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:34:49 -0800

Vijay