how to resolve the i-d nits question

[Steve Bellovin <smb@research.att.com>]

We need to separate the nits into three categories:

	a) readability by the community
		This includes things like table of contents for long
		documents, page breaks, reasonable conformance to
		line lengths, etc.

		Suggested process: wg chairs and/or ADs apply gentle
		persuasion to fix offending documents, early on.

	b) needed by the IESG
		Mostly the content issues, plus table of contents

		Suggested process: summary rejection by the
		sponsoring AD

	c) needed by the RFC editor
		Things that are hard to fix formatting, or are
		error-prone then, such as long-line ASCII art,
		hyphenated works, etc.  The copyright boilerplate
		has to be in an acceptable form; it can't legally
		be added by someone else.  Normative/informative
		split helps the community by speeding up publication,
		but people don't realize it.

		Suggested process: summary rejection by the RFC
		editor or the IESG, depending on who gets there
		first.

I suggest that some <AD, RFCeditor> pair try to split the current list 
into those categories.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)