[rfc-i] Where was the discussion?

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Jan 21 17:39:33 PST 2020

> That is the problem with non-WG drafts

Stadards wonk comment: The RFC format discussion was not an IETF discussion. This isn't an IETF mailing list. As far as I recall, the format discussions took place right here. I must admit that at the time I didn't take much notice of the SVG part of the discussion, but even so I have archived messages from this list as far back as September 2012 referring to SVG.

draft-brownlee-svg-rfc was discussed on this list starting February 2014.

As always, it's in order to disagree with the outcome, but it was emphatically *NOT* a secret discussion.

   Brian Carpenter

On 22-Jan-20 07:26, Doug Royer wrote:
> On 1/20/20 11:01 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> I have read all posts on the RFC-I list that include the string 'SVG'. I find that almost no mention whatsoever was made of SVG-Tiny until it appeared in the drafts. There is barely any mention of an SVG profile before it is asserted that the decision to use a profile of SVG is immutable in 2014. I therefore reject the suggestion that this was sufficiently discussed at the time.
>> If people want to claim that something was discussed and decided, I am going to be asking for a link to the post where that happened.
> I also agree. I ran across this topic because someone Cc'd the topic on a WG years ago. At the time I said that it needed to be discussed in a more open forum. It never was.
> There seems to be some channel of RFC's that make it, and I never seen the discussion. Mostly I do not care. In this case I added myself to that list when I found it. The feedback was limited. And I could not find the discussion history.
> That is the problem with non-WG drafts. Assuming you can find the mailing list (if any), often no history is preserved.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list