[rfc-i] Should RFC-7996-bis be an IETF document in an IETF WG?

Doug Royer douglasroyer at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 11:55:25 PST 2020

On 1/28/20 10:37 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> -> <https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-svg-rfc-bis>

As important as this is to IETF authors, should this be an IETF draft? In an IETF working group? The contents of SVG-RFC and how to make and edit drafts and RFC documents seems like a big deal that would be of interest to a broader audience.

Unfortunately it will probably slow it down as that seems to be what happens. However this is the BIS version, so I would think a little more time to get it more right would be a great thing.

I quick search of my ietf-announce list archive has no mention that 7996-bis exists. I searched for SVG and 7996. (My Thunderbird has over 4,000 of the last sent to the ietf-announce list).

Maybe there is a good reason to do this work on non 'IETF' lists. If so, I would love to hear the reasons.


Doug Royer - (http://DougRoyer.US)
Douglas.Royer at gmail.com

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list