IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com> Tue, 28 January 2020 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <douglasroyer@gmail.com>
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 CC49EF406F7 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 11:55:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 f1KLMEJobV9o for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 11:55:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42a.google.com (mail-pf1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42a]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E74FF406F6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 11:55:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id 84so1099565pfy.6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 11:55:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:subject:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=41YSg2nfyjILvdh1tzV11SL+5Oc1wUf8B1+w14oXVes=; b=dGnP2MndCAUdDwyB0WB3ymK3lURAlahp+oevdsbLzPaUx18kCYFTz+kW1iJEpJgOvv vt1oqmoO3rtjZoNuzEK35hY2TAMOBJIPyZ7Jbgl9mMmNNfwGrlTkgxDRA4sPQ81gKiQa 7maMQ/Ro1R/VX3iFrn0aec9bqsw2vFflIIpeX7YCRmfb50DPJrzUuobtIBoNEnmkUpbP NhuBvrE+yqYJE/ASbOhbauHemm3clhSvgPFYLJ9pKp/MEb1izBYloXIqyQNiM05VTQ8p eoArQqRQj+0R5KQ3/qI/t1OJjGAivNWZS/UeNm0InscbFM7InxbTESoLU/tqDdd2jd1h nmIQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=41YSg2nfyjILvdh1tzV11SL+5Oc1wUf8B1+w14oXVes=; b=liJ8SZXNiAM3ba67RcfZ+nS8FOosjRbXJWTWv968Tex67Q1WKM58E8FizyzRMxCbY3 X2d0Vy7cpV1NvifzSKKx7WPAXR/VuyNDbOjVXN+k5J0XN3Sj2rYmYHfkAFRdk/73ECbw g/oE27ozaVjTfvw6JNWCPsm2YJ2LIoDRJnTfl+5PTR/4tJIjXuoBujOOJtNwAwbyqh4J 1RlZ0b2NhiKD5zAq4QpTjO3PyBSsHaQG5QjpVEHWCA1nU38ytE5nCJPRAaoeLLI4sG5H Zbe+1TlMXinJXKL+neyAfKB9xPA0sWdh42BofHvtwGqWuVoXMHlj8NpyM90jdvGdnIS4 h+rw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWp3SVfU9EKs96cpHpWVKgP+sfrkWDdEVJiOGGHsK/uSMzytNZ2 G/GaDmbAi/0pvlBwbrTIuDr5QNerMs2DRPc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyeu6NQP70H5EVp71Ql5SC0HJ+1jnNOx9i7jPrVO1WOEgbEcxEE1MNQjmTQ6ZDKwMWIOB4mXg==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:ac03:: with SMTP id v3mr5481424pfe.17.1580241326240; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 11:55:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] ([174.27.20.133]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id i11sm3864056pjg.0.2020.01.28.11.55.25 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Jan 2020 11:55:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: Doug Royer <DouglasRoyer@gmail.com>
To: "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Organization: http://SoftwareAndServices.NET
Message-ID: <2ca97fdd-bd7d-3758-1be6-dacd6517c0af@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 12:55:25 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [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>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 19:55:27 -0000

On 1/28/20 10:37 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> -> <https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-svg-rfc-bis>

As important as this is to IETF authors, should this be an IETF draft? In an IETF working group? The contents of SVG-RFC and how to make and edit drafts and RFC documents seems like a big deal that would be of interest to a broader audience.

Unfortunately it will probably slow it down as that seems to be what happens. However this is the BIS version, so I would think a little more time to get it more right would be a great thing.

I quick search of my ietf-announce list archive has no mention that 7996-bis exists. I searched for SVG and 7996. (My Thunderbird has over 4,000 of the last sent to the ietf-announce list).

Maybe there is a good reason to do this work on non 'IETF' lists. If so, I would love to hear the reasons.

Thanks.

-- 
Doug Royer - (http://DougRoyer.US)
Douglas.Royer@gmail.com
714-989-6135

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email