RE: MIB doctor reviews and common format for RFC Editor Notes

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

I tend to agree with Bert and Mike on this one. I hope and trust that the RFC Editor folks and the other involved individuals like the document authors are reading carefully through the final versions of the RFC-to-be-published documents. There is no substitute to this. Adding another CLR in order to automate portions of this operation seems to me the wrong thing to do.

Regards,

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: 16 August, 2003 12:46 PM
> To: C. M. Heard; Jean-Francois Mule; Richard Woundy
> Cc: Bert Wijnen; Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: MIB doctor reviews and common format for RFC Editor Notes
> 
> 
> > > My concern is, it's really hard to do a grep on those comments
> > > to address them or to create a vim syntax file (VI improved) so
> > > that they pop up in red during the final reviews.
> > > 
> > > Is it worth imposing some kind of common convention?
> > 
> > Speaking for myself, I'd rather not because it makes another rule to
> > enforce, but if enough other folks feel the other way I'll happily
> > defer to those wished.  FWIW, when I am doing a MIB review I don't
> > squawk when people deviate from the above forms as long as the notes
> > look obvious enough for the RFC Editor and the IANA liason to find.
> > 
> The important point is that RFC-Editor can see what needs to be done.
> They go through the whole doc (as far as I know), so as long as the
> text is clear that they need to do something, then it is fine.
> 
> The IANA people often scan a doc for the string IANA and for the
> IANA considerations section to see if they need to make assignments 
> and to check if the instructions are clear.
> 
> I would hate us to prescribe an exact format of how to specify all
> of this. That sounds like adding CLRs instead of removing some.
> 
> Bert
> > Mike
> > 
> 
>