Re: ID-Nits

[Aaron Falk <falk@isi.edu>]

Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> Aaron, did you also discuss our ID-NITs discussion, and
> can you come up with the list (possibly extracted from
> my colored web page, or extended/shortened) of NITs
> that we should only give a gentle note about, but that
> you can easily handle during RFC-Editor Editing cycle.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 

Bert-

Yes, we did discuss the IDnits.  The bottom line is that the RFC
Editor is willing and able to handle all the formatting and editorial
nits.  We don't feel documents should be held up overly long for
reasons of formatting, especially since we're going to be fixing the
formatting anyways.  (The IDnits page was, after all, created as a
page of suggestions.)  However, we agree that the best thing for all
involved is to ensure that the semantic nits, e.g., abstract,
normative/informative references, security considerations, etc, are
best addressed as early on to ensure accurate review and group
consensus.

We also agree, as was decided at the retreat, that it is reasonable to
require splitting references between normative and informative on all
IESG-reviewed Informational documents.  Our concern would be
maintaining an inconsistent policy where some Informationals require
splitting references and others don't.  So, extending the current
policy to all IESG-reviewed Informationals seems like a good way to
go.

On a related subject, I should add that we are interested in hearing
more, from Steve Bellovin I think, about the IESG's thoughts on adding
a new category for working group Informational documents such as
requirements, architecture, and framework documents.

Hope this helps,

--aaron