Re: [rfc-i] Should RFC-7996-bis be an IETF document in an IETF WG?

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 06 February 2020 02:19 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 88FB9120100 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 18:19:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=iecc.com header.b=JzqprobG; dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=taugh.com header.b=J0DS3eT3
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 NNFhXk7EQOc7 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 18:19:14 -0800 (PST)
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 CC8851200A4 for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 18:19:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 852F9F406C4; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 18:18:57 -0800 (PST)
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 72856F406C4 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 18:18:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=JzqprobG; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=J0DS3eT3
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 ZH8zopqECrvV for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 18:18:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17E64F406C3 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 18:18:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 29551 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2020 02:19:07 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=736d.5e3b779b.k2002; bh=YDOf0GXa4PFs/i0ITmIFhWP+LECJIJC9ngymsYY1F+k=; b=JzqprobGRXGEt7pTLGmpaqpf5Y1aCgphT8w2HUcl1e/IGDWe4GTHhsp/6Gyh/CDkdUFIrHxIFCOwaNQ/OCaPlUQ5s3TfvefCtP40pJEiZoW3Hbjq3Be9PTUKIdpR4QVEeVMXIT54kA8Tnngbu2dEiMpqka5T0SUph8u3fdU56uncNZJihCUEDljl9ZBSgPKsw3BZ/BANfRZfNeORfMvKwnRLJhegjuu2LjKz93bTC7z2YYa14iJa6Pkqy25ZDQl4
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=736d.5e3b779b.k2002; bh=YDOf0GXa4PFs/i0ITmIFhWP+LECJIJC9ngymsYY1F+k=; b=J0DS3eT3OVkRfWEIIU+q97NzVKMJL0rYNx8V2UdkDdlzoQnxZFCOrzph+T6ttWLzMDmEiUQPZpTOarvyyDL0OZSE9Kc801c0l0UxqccGgAK9O8CsZMTfFSUq716dV7ydLOO7kWrsaXMW0VFP900dindT1sRHuV0thDp/KZci8mSOy0mMHqAndIjXvHNSPFEmVI2orV4zTDGN1OfvUPx5sLbzuVJgvZ0+xB0pfc07L9GnmrNxqOf7RzcXDZ8IRgX9
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 06 Feb 2020 02:19:07 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3AFD813C31A3; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 21:19:06 -0500 (EST)
Date: 5 Feb 2020 21:19:06 -0500
Message-Id: <20200206021907.3AFD813C31A3@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
In-Reply-To: <264786fd-4096-31b8-5af2-ed6176f8db21@gmx.de>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Should RFC-7996-bis be an IETF document in an IETF WG?
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>
Cc: julian.reschke@gmx.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

In article <264786fd-4096-31b8-5af2-ed6176f8db21@gmx.de> you write:
>> Maybe there is a good reason to do this work on non 'IETF' lists. If so,
>> I would love to hear the reasons.
>> ...
>
>That's a question for the RSE, not me :-)

I'm new here but I gather that the idea is that stuff about RFCs lives in
the rfc-editor.org domain.

This list is archived in the IETF mail archive, the list runs on the
same server cluster as the IETF lists, and there's a link to it on the
rfc-editor home page so it's not like it's hidden away.  

R's,
John

PS:  The note well probably does not apply.

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest