Re: [rfc-i] acknowledging reviewers name in RFCs

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 16 April 2020 23:04 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED873A12E1; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 JA1xKtTndsM9; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39E523A12DF; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E09F40737; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB5EF40737 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xffpJjKdc2ww for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59236F4071C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C9D23897C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 19:02:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A5D1DA for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 19:04:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
In-Reply-To: <5602.1557340483@localhost>
References: <20190507181846.GO19509@kduck.mit.edu> <f46c85a9-1179-35df-e737-77b9220af74b@levkowetz.com> <20190508003012.GS19509@kduck.mit.edu> <5602.1557340483@localhost>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
X-Attribution: mcr
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 19:04:18 -0400
Message-ID: <12393.1587078258@localhost>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] acknowledging reviewers name in RFCs
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4601752196310473697=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

I found this in my outbox from nearly a year ago while looking for something
else.

There was some strong support that if we were going to Acknowledge reviews
and other activities, that we should do it in a semantically meaningful XML
way.

There was a mix of views about criteria for who should be acknowledged.
At this point, I'd like to leave it to authors to decide, and perhaps some
WGs might decide to experiment with guidelines.

In order to get there, it seems that we need to add semantic XML, and I don't
know what the process would be do that.

I understand that we have outstanding mismatches between our specifications
and our tools already.
Is there an issue tracker that I should use to lodge this "feature request"?
Should I just send a patch?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    > Benjamin's email to tools-discuss about how to find who did a review
    > reminded me of some things that I'd like to have in published RFCs.
    > I believe that it will help with getting more volunteers into our process if
    > we more publically and formally acknowledge others.

    > I'd like to have a standard way to show who did:
    > 1) WG chair and AD stick-handling of a document.
    > 2) Document Shepherd
    > 3) Area reviews, and detailed individual reviews

    > While many authors put many of these things into Acknowledgements, it's not
    > in a standard format, and it's not easily pulled out in the XML.
    > (Such as by Jari's scripts)

    > I know that overall RFC version 3 format is done, and I'll go do some
    > homework as I suspect that all the pieces to do this in the XML is there, we
    > just have to do it.

    > But, before offering a specific solution, I'd like to find out how we would
    > get consensus that this is a correct thing to do.  Yes, I can write an
    > Internet Draft, but it wouldn't be longer than the above email, and I'm not
    > sure who would approve if not the IESG/GenAD.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest