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

[Dan Whaley <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Dave,

As coincidence would have it, Yaron @ IETF has recently published a thought
piece on this.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-ietf-rfc-annotations-00

We talk to him tomorrow morning.

Thanks for thinking of us.  We'll let you know if this goes anywhere.

Dan

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Dave Taht <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:38 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > I have no specific objection to doing something. I wasn’t planning on
> being
> > the one to do anything anyways.
>
> These folk: https://hypothes.is/
>
> have been at it a while and might be amiable to an ietf
> standardization effort.  Adding in my contact there.
>
> ...
>
> The history of web annotation is not very promising thus far, but who
> knows what could happen if it emerges at the right time?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_annotation
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I do have a concern about your comment about getting a summary of
> perhaps a
> > few years of commentary. The problem with tools that annotate comments
> > against the RFC is that anyone looking at just those comments does not
> get
> > the complete picture. Even if the working group is closed, pointing
> people
> > to the group/archive gives someone the opportunity to get a more complete
> > picture. Your comment may also be taken as a reason for keeping mailing
> > lists open for an extended period even after the working group is no
> longer
> > active. Every once in a while therew ill be a post to the DKIM or SPF
> lists
> > by someone with a question or comment – even though those groups have
> been
> > inactive for some time.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 10:30 AM
> > To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> > Cc: Yaron Sheffer; IETF
> > Subject: Re: How to get feedback on published RFCs [resending as
> plaintext]
> >
> >
> >
> > Doing nothing is always an option.   These kind folks are proposing doing
> > something, though, rather than nothing.   This makes sense, because the
> > working group might no longer exist, and email archives are useless for
> > getting a summary of perhaps a few years of commentary that may have
> > occurred.
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you have a specific objection to doing something, or do you just not
> want
> > to have to be the one to do it?   :)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:16 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) <
> [e-mail]>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Täht
> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>