Re: How to get feedback on published RFCs [resending as plaintext]

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

It does seem a bit absurd to me that there isn't a specific email
address given in RFCs for questions/comments, which should typically
be a WG email. Currently, the only choices for a random reader would
be the authors' email addresses or [e-mail]. True, WGs don't last
forever, but their mailing lists commonly have a longer lifetime than
the WG itself, questions and comments on earlier RFCs while the WG
that produced them was still active are particularly likely and
useful, and, when the WG email list is "closed", it could actually be
forwarded to a more general email address...

There are advantages and disadvantages to email and "annotation". I
would particularly note that both need spam filtration.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]


On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 19/07/16 15:16, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Yaron Sheffer
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 7:54 AM
>>> To: IETF
>>> Subject: How to get feedback on published RFCs [resending as plaintext]
>>>
>>> Once an RFC is published, there is essentially no way for readers to
>>> provide
>>> feedback: what works, what are the implementation pitfalls, how does the
>>> document relate to other technologies or even to other RFCs.
>>>
>>> We IETF insiders usually know what is the relevant working group, and can
>>> take our feedback there. Non-insiders though don't have any contact
>>> point,
>>> and so will most likely keep their feedback to themselves. These
>>> non-IETFers
>>> are the target audience of our documents! Unfortunately, our so-called
>>> "Requests for Comments" are anything but an invitation to submit
>>> comments.
>>>
>>
>> A simple solution would be to include a pointer to the relevant working
>> group as a header or note to the RFC. There could be a standard "How to
>> comment" section. No need for additional tools or process.
>>
>> Mke
>>
>
> Working groups are not forever, so giving a working group name or email
> address is not very useful. Besides, not all comments (e.g. implementation
> experience) are even appropriate to send to the WG list.
>
> Thanks,
>         Yaron
>