Archive

Brian,

> On Jan 28, 2020, at 5:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

I agree for the reasons you state.  I do wonder if it’s time to revisit the question if there should be an RFC Editor stream.  It seems very appropriate for documents like this, the V3 work, etc.   It would cause less confusion.

Bob

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

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

Attachment: signature.asc