RE: ID-NITS on: draft-smith-urn-mpeg-01.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Inline
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Braden [mailto:braden@ISI.EDU]
> Sent: zaterdag 26 april 2003 22:49
> To: hardie@qualcomm.com; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; bwijnen@lucent.com
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: ID-NITS on: draft-smith-urn-mpeg-01.txt
> 
> 
>   *> 
>   *> Since this came in via RFC-Editor, maybe they should already
>   *> have taken care of this ?? Or maybe they will when they edit it
>   *> and maybe we should just ignore this.
>   *> 
>   *> Long line at 6 with 106 chars, only spaces extra
>   *> Long line at 52 with 75 chars
>   *> Long page at 59
>   *> Long line at 82 with 73 chars
>   *> Long line at 117 with 75 chars
>   *> Long line at 186 with 76 chars
>   *> Long line at 252 with 75 chars
>   *> Long line at 275 with 73 chars, only spaces extra
>   *> Long line at 281 with 77 chars
>   *> Long line at 282 with 76 chars
>   *> Long line at 283 with 78 chars
>   *> Long line at 284 with 77 chars
>   *> Long line at 289 with 73 chars, only spaces extra
>   *> Long line at 305 with 81 chars
>   *> Long line at 307 with 78 chars
>   *> Long line at 313 with 76 chars
>   *> Long line at 318 with 75 chars
>   *> Long line at 339 with 73 chars, only spaces extra
>   *> Long line at 384 with 75 chars
>   *> Long line at 450 with 75 chars
>   *> -: 19 lines longer than 72 characters, max 106
>   *> -: 1 pages longer than 58 lines, max 450 lines
> 
> Bert,
> 
> Line and page length issues (and some other minor typographical and
> editorial flaws that are not content-related) we customarily leave for
> the final editing.  We could take a pass on these minor problems before
> passing an independent submission to the IESG, but I think that it
> would be more efficient to just let the final edit take care of it.
> We understood that the IESG review was primarily for content.
> 
Bob/Other RFC-Editor folk,

We have the ID-NITs topic on our IESG retreat agenda.
I believe Harald (or someone) has already asked you if you (RFC-Editor
function) could provide us with a list of NITs that we could skip because
you have no problem in fixing them in the final editing phase.

One of our concerns is that we have a number of things on our ID-NITs
list that are more "nice to adhere too, but if you don't, then RFc-Editor
has no trouble with it and can easily fix it in their editing process.

We need to get to an ID-NITs list about which we are serious and whcih we 
are willing to enforce. My effort this weekend was to check all I-Ds on 
out agenda for ID-NITs issues (but be carefull, I am not claiming that I
found all possible nits).

Hope this explains,
>   *> 
>   *> Need to expand URN and MPEG in title
> 
> It was our judgment that URN and MPEG are so widely known that they
> do not need expansion in the title, but we are happy to get feedback
> on this issue.
> 
Well... see that is some of the problems we have with the policy of
no Acronyms in the title. It is pretty subjective as to what one 
assume is well known and what is not. Or so I think.

Bert
> Bob Braden, for the RFC Editor
> 
>   *> 
>   *> Thanks,
>   *> Bert 
>   *> 
>