[rfc-i] Should RFC-7996-bis be an IETF document in an IETF WG?
Andrew G. Malis
agmalis at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 14:26:37 PST 2020
Given that RFC 7996 was previously draft-iab-svg-rfc, and thus published on
the IAB track, this is really a question for the IAB, not the RSE.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 3:10 PM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>
> On 28.01.2020 20:55, Doug Royer wrote:
> > 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.
> > ...
> That's a question for the RSE, not me :-)
> Best regards, Julian
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest