Re: Editorial comments on draft-ietf-ipsec-sctp-05.txt

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>
> To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>; "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
> Cc: <iesg@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 2:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Editorial comments on draft-ietf-ipsec-sctp-05.txt
>

> General:
>
> The tradition with requirements for publishing I-Ds is that we publish
> anything that will stick to electrons, as long as it looks like ASCII and
> has the correct boilerplate on the first page.
>
> The tradition with publishing I-Ds that are due to become RFCs is that we
> try to make as little work for the RFC Editor as possible - this also makes
> checking the diff between last published I-D and the final RFC in Auth48
> easier.
>
> That also minimizes surprises to the WG.
>
> So while adding pagination, IPR sections and so on shouldn't be mandatory
> (since the RFC Editor will do it), adding them does no harm, and probably
> some good.
>
>                   Harald
>

Thanks for the clarification.  When will
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt and
http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html be updated to
reflect this?  They currently mandate RFC 2223 format.

BTW, there are quite a few I-Ds with non-ASCII junk in them.

Randy