Re: I-D Action: draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00.txt

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 15 September 2016 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC3812B137 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vpv_vBtTKuCM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FD8A12B0E8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6634C268658; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1473962100; bh=SCVa+YjloMNXSueOxuxELF8IFsgVULvJ3ea1NiuqZyA=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=L8Ao5OkPezOlXvTBcjyWDzEIwJkU7XJ0LnF/L13lYzrT7iA28gHxmRbO8xaRnZ0ba 7+ANTpo7YCERKHBzMlhjGlsOM0EqhNNstFFU0Is+emqyVI4UI0xHFn5Y+3TDeOlwBS 76PRtovI1jqxkvHyWoPa18CAVWK6Pu2KJe2m/l7o=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CAD6A268654; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00.txt
To: Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
References: <147389550726.29872.13885747896056913688.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0f129603-20c0-921f-6a67-e5a4c74b3c41@gmail.com> <CAA=duU0NNCeL1EP5iJo9YxDmgdtgXSpa+GO1Xs_i38HMrFxSKQ@mail.gmail.com> <b4ab1536-0eb4-0bb4-d441-79cfd74cfd9c@joelhalpern.com> <etPan.57dadf28.651c4751.8438@rfc-editor.org>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <4c2ec1df-b9af-c35c-9147-ee9cac31abe1@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:56:58 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <etPan.57dadf28.651c4751.8438@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/W3--28LY9LFAGk3Au8PtPmwytw4>
Cc: dret@ca.com
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 17:55:02 -0000

I agree that it would be good if those streams paid attention to the 
discussion.  It would be particularly good if they made the same choices 
about meaning.
But due to our history, it seems to me that the decision to do that is 
up to each stream.  And thus the IETF having the discussion is helpful. 
I would hope that if the IAB or IRTF (or ISE) have observations about 
the approaches, the IETF would pay attention to that.

Yours,
Joel

On 9/15/16 1:49 PM, Heather Flanagan wrote:
> From the RFC Editor perspective, I’m hoping that this document will
> touch on more than just the IETF stream. Both the IAB and the
> Independent Submissions streams (but not the IRTF stream) contain
> Updates/Obsoletes. Not many, but they do exist and should be accounted for.
>
> -Heather
>
> On September 15, 2016 at 9:11:40 AM, Joel M. Halpern
> (jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>) wrote:
>
>> As the draft is probably about IETF process, not RFC Editor rules, I
>> would think that ietf@ietf.org would be the venue for discussing the
>> draft, unless Jari thinks it needs a separate list (which I doubt).
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 9/15/16 8:58 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>> > I noticed that as well in the announcement. The proper place to discuss
>> > this draft is most probably rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
>> > <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org> .
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Andy
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter
>> > <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     > Note to Readers
>> >     >
>> >     >    This draft should be discussed on the wgchairs mailing list [1].
>> >
>> >     Um, no. That's a closed list.
>> >
>> >     Regards
>> >        Brian
>> >
>> >
>>
> --
> Heather Flanagan
> RFC Series Editor