IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer@ag.com> Tue, 19 July 2016 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <MHammer@ag.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 47D5312D921 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 08:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.891
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 xGZw655DRzqh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 08:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from agwhqht.amgreetings.com (agwhqht.amgreetings.com [207.58.192.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04E8812D692 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 07:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com ([fe80::f5de:4c30:bc26:d70a]) by USCLES533.agna.amgreetings.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:45:34 -0400
From: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer@ag.com>
To: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: How to get feedback on published RFCs [resending as plaintext]
Thread-Topic: How to get feedback on published RFCs [resending as plaintext]
Thread-Index: AQHR4bRZDuzUhSZJDUOYFCxua0BWnKAfu5+ggABZRAD//76P8A==
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:45:33 +0000
Message-ID: <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B05266CEC0F@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com>
References: <578E14F4.2040000@gmail.com> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B05266CE983@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <578E3A66.8040500@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <578E3A66.8040500@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.144.15.230]
x-kse-attachmentfiltering-interceptor-info: protection disabled
x-kse-serverinfo: USCLES533.agna.amgreetings.com, 9
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful
x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean, bases: 7/19/2016 12:02:00 PM
x-kse-dlp-scaninfo: Skipped
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dm9Zu0JGrh8QZ3bNdMFgAx_9-h0>
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: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 15:09:44 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaron Sheffer [mailto:yaronf.ietf@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 10:34 AM
> To: MH Michael Hammer (5304); IETF
> Subject: Re: How to get feedback on published RFCs [resending as plaintext]
> 
> On 19/07/16 15:16, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] 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.
> 

We get plenty of inappropriate comments to WG lists already. The world has not come to an end. This may be an argument for having a parallel list that is kept open and which is specifically for implementation/ops issues. I have this great little cartoon over my desk with a picture of a building on fire. The caption is "Worked fine in Dev, ops problem now". - https://sethvargo.com/the-ten-myths-of-devops/worked-in-dev-ops-problem-now-7809f3cf.jpg

Mike

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email