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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 29 January 2020 01:53 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 8E5ACF40709 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 17:53:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.903 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, SURBL_BLOCKED=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 lJujTonqrw3d for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 17:53:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x531.google.com (mail-pg1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::531]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86728F4070D for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 17:53:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x531.google.com with SMTP id r11so8007379pgf.1 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 17:53:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bzjx2+gPVLdEZnCNG4Kw6dE0nwEmOsWEO4y5XKGMOy0=; b=SGfDOwYZnMv5SAqer/QszRqURpbt9UONsH7x8cjRT9lqCkITkp2lPGdatIaataFRRR SHHhd+XwyS5FilMNavNaiMyY7hu83tTkC73jYA9QzIN+wGk++Vz3lFyBeayklM6AxF6U hh+t4m9BVTDd5Tq3oAjVseqNBq7ZttaaIegpwGv+y4EBOUsYfsNehoPxCb6nqtrjc7na PtmcO9Oqq7zWy0TicxfpFyvL1QavgidQRYnk60L3G0IczxRHFSs67fBhJ57sA6JN3msS vE6Nat2d33/0sJ4mqNgdSshq6Du8PSaZ1Weom5koT7BPlypKCEoA4ecam1W/6HUtv3Bm 2UpQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bzjx2+gPVLdEZnCNG4Kw6dE0nwEmOsWEO4y5XKGMOy0=; b=TmG1jGSvSUwCCJT9SC4k9tj5vjNLFp6e7OM/e5dklqg072x1lKSy+KjlZ2PssLibSf CLiJ/i7XHipHuQtQrIzQx8wRJLhEuX89rM6fdfiTND0N2vkIKSQnDKtjjPyX7dCg+OXG ECDSqx9c0YTCHkMdX5gQzeGAL8Uefz+Axr8lTQXM4E8/gLlENPeg8FQ7Vi3jh9PeGxMT 1IT+gKGxMz+9cWa8G2v8OVRHnWB4gM41mq0s+jWBB3nHQu5SaWH5f1zc625Jd1TsqPlg qmXqjsrGjIUUJ3mCCPJq6vgEjKucWlBkzmViJZUz/C/+o0ypNlGYBVa8Vgks8F3SqF6B E9WA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWW2tZPWeuxJ81SwFksWH9MGu4WTXXM7huKa0lx7BzFHlWqGv9B vKUvaU12MBE/jWW632fcpqHhqDzd
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxKbZY2IQ1BEA8e/RCsBuRvs2mtXMJXZkT7tzt8er8L8aDai6tM5N3nJYaQKDkI629CnNSTRg==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:4142:: with SMTP id x2mr27634951pgp.393.1580262788633; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 17:53:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.1.2.245] ([43.251.155.206]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m3sm332882pgp.32.2020.01.28.17.53.06 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Jan 2020 17:53:07 -0800 (PST)
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
References: <2ca97fdd-bd7d-3758-1be6-dacd6517c0af@gmail.com> <264786fd-4096-31b8-5af2-ed6176f8db21@gmx.de> <CAA=duU2b5gQEtdpmgYzMbvsc0HzR28Ob6PurMT3fygnGC6uLVw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eaecdc48-1234-ebf4-5240-676622916d7f@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 14:53:04 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU2b5gQEtdpmgYzMbvsc0HzR28Ob6PurMT3fygnGC6uLVw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 01:53:09 -0000

On 29-Jan-20 11:26, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> 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.

Not really. The v3 RFCs were (and I heard this from the RSE at the time) published in the IAB stream only because there is no RFC Editor stream as such. More a matter of convenience than anything else. So it is indeed for the acting RSE to chime in.

In any case, documents defining the RFC series should never be IETF stream documents, because the IETF is not the only user of the RFC series and is not in charge of the RFC series.

It's important to get input from the IETF, and of course the IETF can define what it likes about the format of IETF drafts. But if we do stuff in IETF drafts that is impossible in RFCs, all we're doing is creating avoidable problems.

Regards
    Brian

> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 3:10 PM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de <mailto: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 <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>