Re: Target times for MIB Doctor Review

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:
> However, I also have done MIB review that require a lot of fixes in the
> wording of description clauses. In such occasions it might become easier
> to edit the document directly instead of mentioning all proposals
> for improved wording. In that case the reviewer becomes like being
> an editor. I am not sure if all would agree on this, but I beleive
> it is part of the task of the MIB reviewer to make the text also
> correct (of course style might be subjective to reviewer also).
> However, I also believe that in those occasions, the original editors
> are at fault, since they do not provide a MIB module with proper
> descriptions, for instance.
> 
> I am not sure how this can be avoided, but being earlier
> part of the process it might help.

This has happened to me, too.  I've always gone to the trouble to
write up the comments in the form "this is wrong because ..."
followed by suggested text, in the standard RFC Editor form

OLD:
...

NEW:
...

or some equivalent.  This can indeed be VERY time consuming, but I
do believe that if I complain about something I need at least to be
prepared to offer a suggestion on how to fix it.  This is approach
has usually been well-received;  one time the principal author
wanted to make me a co-author (I politely declined).

Probably the only real fix is to work with authors who are very
diligent and have great writing skills.  Unfortunately we don't
really have any control over that!

//cmh