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

Andrew G. Malis agmalis at gmail.com
Wed Jan 29 04:09:17 PST 2020


Brian,

Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers,
Andy


On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 8:53 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 29-Jan-20 11:26, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Not really. The v3 RFCs were (and I heard this from the RSE at the time)
> published in the IAB stream only because there is no RFC Editor stream as
> such. More a matter of convenience than anything else. So it is indeed for
> the acting RSE to chime in.
>
> In any case, documents defining the RFC series should never be IETF stream
> documents, because the IETF is not the only user of the RFC series and is
> not in charge of the RFC series.
>
> It's important to get input from the IETF, and of course the IETF can
> define what it likes about the format of IETF drafts. But if we do stuff in
> IETF drafts that is impossible in RFCs, all we're doing is creating
> avoidable problems.
>
> Regards
>     Brian
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 3:10 PM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de
> <mailto:julian.reschke at gmx.de>> wrote:
> >
> >     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 <mailto:rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>
> >     https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rfc-interest mailing list
> > rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200129/f6272e09/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list