[rfc-i] Fwd: Pre-IETF RFCs to Historic (not really proposing)

Fred Baker fred at cisco.com
Fri Sep 16 10:57:35 PDT 2011


One issue in this is the contact information we place in RFCs. Since RFCs are forever, it sort of assumes that email addresses are forever, and at least in my case they're not. A service that we could somehow (ISOC, Secretariat, whatever) supply would be a contact service, in essence a set of aliases that IETF participants can easily update and control. The big issue would be spam control.

One approach that might have value would be a web service that in some way authenticates a requestor (to limit spam) and sends an email to the authors of a given document at an address that they maintain. One possible implementation would be that each document has a list of authors (if I am author on 50 RFCs, 50 "RFC" database records point to my "author" record), each author has a current SMTP address that s/he maintains (once, not once per RFC), and the web tool sends a message to the authors inviting them to contact the person requesting contact with the authors. 

On Sep 16, 2011, at 9:05 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote:

> FYI
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus at daboo.name>
>> Date: September 16, 2011 10:52:18 AM EDT
>> To: Keith Moore <moore at network-heretics.com>, Ronald Bonica <rbonica at juniper.net>
>> Cc: Scott O Bradner <sob at harvard.edu>, IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: Pre-IETF RFCs to Historic (not really proposing)
>> 
>> Hi Keith,
>> 
>> --On September 16, 2011 10:10:06 AM -0400 Keith Moore <moore at network-heretics.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I think we need a low-overhead and relatively informal mechanism of
>>> reporting errata and requesting clarifications, and maybe that it should
>>> be expanded a bit to serve as an implementation and interoperability
>>> reporting mechanism.  But I don't think that having such a mechanism
>>> requires us to maintain expertise in every subject matter area covered by
>>> every RFC.
>> 
>> Again I would like to bring up the idea of every RFC having an associated wiki page(s). The goal here is to provide a way for implementors to add comments, annotations, clarifications, corrections etc to augment the RFCs. Whilst such commentary can often be found on IETF mailing lists after an RFC is published locating those and searching them can be tedious - plus the full history of discussion on various points is often not relevant to an implementor - all they need to know is what is the correct way to do it now.
>> 
>> Doing something like this would obviously require some investment in additional infrastructure. There are also questions about how we would maintain the integrity of the information on the wiki pages, but I think those are things we can easily address.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Cyrus Daboo
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list