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

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Wed, 29 January 2020 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@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 2B080F406D5 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 08:06:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 oTvZw4VLYHjl for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 08:06:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x330.google.com (mail-wm1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::330]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77945F406CB for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 08:06:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x330.google.com with SMTP id p9so301924wmc.2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 08:06:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=Rc0GboDRKiqJ6eKbiOy84dDqAz2zUwB0VNEnS1MTl2E=; b=Ur87fC5sQYjiyo96PLdcEEqpjFOW7H0jDIFCIe9hCoHw2pykngjWUkelfCeG8k1be5 ChUg4dzkOOoLsXjT/7VAuBlPddWSQ4EKBQzD9FkKhV/HL/l1CqmDFs+WTCbJnCJfaWIh APDr2I+vqyEZ7D+PmcrKb1r6iF0bUxRGkz9B3JuB2goNDnKP7ew7CLa/ErRI57bt4TGt qSbou7oF9J1Snn7rPbRj4kWdWyvUyoRuWHF+ij/zCz2AxnrvHqZE4PktkCvfFU3thhXo vhSyEbHKpMUwN/9VjDy0iUnJL8ICKsMKSftA919Xi0VZWcKpllLrJe6jOhJXmEFyCFjI XZjg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=Rc0GboDRKiqJ6eKbiOy84dDqAz2zUwB0VNEnS1MTl2E=; b=Vpv2eJf/9LWy486S7fBnNwEMVouyhHw2DNa9f8ScG0Jb/c4qJ/iMgJmGnjias2j3yI 715WZt/XMXFiqfzxCiQVxw+sAiFPXzKNApgRgcYj3QpELpfRA1e0kGBhxR8uvxKOxDez cfcByshlRmbQaald7LakjG7N39W5wdre1yn3or8pzuKqkunOaxlerUPTclTQcZQoCI7R EBJP7nA/DwLmo9azTEMXZ0+o4XQp4fWs5GS0PCc7cR5GFTa+RjefeVR2nWnquQF5FUHf 7HB8HDv2OoozupE33GPeBO3ne62kHJtfl4FWf6z8bUosw3S3913RVMXwxO76pUF/OEFP NyCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXbZhdVBDB5z40xwI9PCHS/pq3ws0JNRqGdgK0EWkPKh3i51nmC VN25e3bxQyeKvKtmCUXib0of+etHTF8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqywqHrP39ECg69rwEy3FlnvI+BH+lCPAZZ229onl7/WbDpxWoItIfjvcE1QoGdE5AMxYGNwkg==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:6a06:: with SMTP id f6mr12654347wmc.137.1580314014672; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 08:06:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:9c30:2992:e45d:f424? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:9c30:2992:e45d:f424]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i2sm2899514wmb.28.2020.01.29.08.06.52 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Jan 2020 08:06:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <7EC1BFFF-D787-454F-9499-41057EDBE7DE@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C0D659FC-F0D1-494E-A19A-11FFBC3DEF82"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 08:06:50 -0800
In-Reply-To: <eaecdc48-1234-ebf4-5240-676622916d7f@gmail.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <2ca97fdd-bd7d-3758-1be6-dacd6517c0af@gmail.com> <264786fd-4096-31b8-5af2-ed6176f8db21@gmx.de> <CAA=duU2b5gQEtdpmgYzMbvsc0HzR28Ob6PurMT3fygnGC6uLVw@mail.gmail.com> <eaecdc48-1234-ebf4-5240-676622916d7f@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
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 16:06:54 -0000

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