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

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Tue, 28 January 2020 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@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 1CDEFF40714 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 14:26:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, SURBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 1AAhRErz3Jde for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 14:26:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72a.google.com (mail-qk1-x72a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7869CF4070F for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 14:26:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72a.google.com with SMTP id k6so15114589qki.5 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 14:26:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=35B2Xl6Jw6DLTvztgEdrz9fDy2i/Wl8fVMNY9IVUJE0=; b=V0bi/sdABBYn/evbMJFyCzHBFWwNDSD0CPiLwGAeJJoP/rdO9WtJfJU1AsJ46Olo6h /cQCb8bnEhktDRW8rCuZdaYp2FlzNAqwq/a/hnfCWB+Q7vY/BYysx3JEXUW2Ni1iw6T2 vD84LKqShbkrDWViay7vVRKTcE6GGpfU7psHeC7UwJSnRpsgw4Rcp6W3oxyqwmlYCEAQ 7HDS6/6dnZjRbmCbLvLYr37tACxFdmpEOnOMYrmKH+8xGXzILeAipP0OlHGUFqd2F5/p KZIqX9gX58ws+YMRj1OWO3c2lNHKKVwh2tTmqHmzRospwjZ/6Ajd1I+NHrKIeXFU2QuF ae6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=35B2Xl6Jw6DLTvztgEdrz9fDy2i/Wl8fVMNY9IVUJE0=; b=HlvznSEU96cHZlRJRgU8/oDPPbO4SFgVBzgiBTyv6wA1bpmXimnQymFeOrT3R4mb7U QPx+gTjVkYoNQTJt7zEU6jp++OZ0LawNLjTuCu8USZi1/UVsp3gdVrs1n9P1quy9CusZ tYyAfp5exjyAW2WLRXGds/Gx84mJLdala7DyfRUUtCVEXA2hyCoIZiSsBmoP/xa8Rk3g OLWSscZrIdpKoRzSdGfygJGpsgfs3FNo/HhziKTUdeRH56/kaDxS9EBRMnoVR7EhuIF0 nA9XviZSIciDSIoQbxkdSkU8VGKCxR4bJDM+uq/XDyHOIw4A36lQ1JiH5kp8eTfh8Cij z5yw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV1FDkCAY+a+xdttP3RPPFWDDs/b5+xRWYudBgTzbvykWekCay8 qNqfyW52PtMubw6/u3xR4OJqRCTjocWZy+WCOeY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxXSDgr5tcNGHzlLEWzrrkq4RcxfcYemp584qBQaEsABYJfOlXf24G3VyN1EW4HJetGBZq8SG4ogw6fQZ0VyQQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:dd5:: with SMTP id 204mr25691982qkn.249.1580250408704; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 14:26:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2ca97fdd-bd7d-3758-1be6-dacd6517c0af@gmail.com> <264786fd-4096-31b8-5af2-ed6176f8db21@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <264786fd-4096-31b8-5af2-ed6176f8db21@gmx.de>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 17:26:37 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA=duU2b5gQEtdpmgYzMbvsc0HzR28Ob6PurMT3fygnGC6uLVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com>, "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, IAB <iab@iab.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000445d6f059d3ab8a4"
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 22:26:49 -0000

Given that RFC 7996 was previously draft-iab-svg-rfc, and thus published on
the IAB track, this is really a question for the IAB, not the RSE.

Cheers,
Andy


On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 3:10 PM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:

> On 28.01.2020 20:55, Doug Royer wrote:
> > 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.
> > ...
>
> That's a question for the RSE, not me :-)
>
> Best regards, Julian
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>