[rfc-i] Where to put a notice saying where a draft should be discussed?

Phillip Hallam-Baker phill at hallambaker.com
Tue Aug 13 16:49:51 PDT 2019

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 6:37 PM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>

> Am 14.08.2019 um 00:28 schrieb Joel M. Halpern:
> > Well, if it is a working group draft, or aimed at a specific working
> > group, it is usually pretty clear.
> It might be totally non-obvious to readers not familiar with the IETF.
> > Conversely, if it is a new idea the author may not know where the
> > appropriate place to discuss the draft really is.  Finding that out may
> > be part of the reason for writing the draft.
> >
> > So sure, when it is known and not obvious, indicate it.
> I don't think it's ever obvious to non-IETF people.

It is not obvious to me where I should send errata on PKIX items. The WG
closed long ago and can't be re-opened.

We probably need to think about this at IETF level because one of the main
issues that keeps coming up with IETF specs is maintenance after the draft
is shipped. Only insiders really know about errata.

> Also, when there's no obvious place, it might be good just define one
> (personal email, issue tracker, the IETF area's mailing list...).

I think RFCs should probably have a note specifying where to send
comments/errata. It is not necessary for it to be the WG list. in fact it
is probably best if it isn't because then it can be aliased more easily.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20190813/34d14300/attachment.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list