Re: [rfc-i] acknowledging reviewers name in RFCs

Sarah B <sbanks@encrypted.net> Fri, 31 May 2019 00:42 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD7112016F for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 17:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hCtYnuU7pwgB for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 17:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 336851200B4 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2019 17:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6EB8B81EF6; Thu, 30 May 2019 17:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
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 92DD1B81EF5; Thu, 30 May 2019 17:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
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 E4yODI5_mkDp; Thu, 30 May 2019 17:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aws.hosed.org (aws.hosed.org [50.16.104.137]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2AB9B81EF4; Thu, 30 May 2019 17:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F5A28001B; Thu, 30 May 2019 20:42:06 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at aws.hosed.org
Received: from aws.hosed.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aws.hosed.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nr3tnxq_lxES; Thu, 30 May 2019 20:42:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.63] (c-73-222-215-180.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.222.215.180]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 233168001A; Thu, 30 May 2019 20:41:59 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
From: Sarah B <sbanks@encrypted.net>
In-Reply-To: <A66BF8D9-58AE-43A5-88D5-C6867E622B08@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 17:41:47 -0700
Message-Id: <7CC388F3-360C-4CBC-99CE-B0D756C5E767@encrypted.net>
References: <30895.1559243194@localhost> <A66BF8D9-58AE-43A5-88D5-C6867E622B08@rfc-editor.org>
To: Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] acknowledging reviewers name in RFCs
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>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Hi Heather,
	I think you can get some of this info today. For example, RFC7654 is mine. When I click on it, I get the option to look at the draft. When I click on the draft, I can then click on Tracker. Once there, I can see who submitted the reviews (I see that there is a GENDIR and a SECDIR review), who the Doc Shep was, and who the responsible AD was. 

To Michaels original question, I personally don't believe we should require this information. Who reviewed a doc becomes a "what constitutes a review" discussion point, is it a long list that I as the author has to maintain? What happens if someone's name doesn't show up and we publish, but they want it included, do we generate an errata for this? etc etc. I think we all have enough to do today, including the RPC, and I don't need another mandatory section for me to have to maintain. What's wrong with the ad hoc way it is?

Thanks
Sarah

> On May 30, 2019, at 3:03 PM, Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
>> On May 30, 2019, at 12:06, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I wrote this back on May 8, but I don't see it in the archives via IMAP.
>> A recent change to spam filtering means I've fallen off many lists, so I am
>> reposting.   I had CC'ed this to IESG.  It seems I emailed
>> rfc-interest@ietf.org, which was wrong, even though it's all hosted on ietf servers.
> 
> I don’t think I saw the message either. Apologies if it got lost in the swarm of spam messages that get filtered by mailman!
> 
>> 
>> Benjamin wrote an email email to tools-discuss awhile ago about how to find
>> who did a review reminded me of some things that I'd like to have in
>> published RFCs. I believe that it will help with getting more non-authoring
>> volunteers into our process if we more publically and formally acknowledge them.
>> 
>> I'd like to have a standard way to show who was:
>> 1) WG chair and AD stick-handling of a document.
>> 2) Document Shepherd
>> 3) Area reviews, and detailed individual reviews
>> 
>> While many authors put many of these things into Acknowledgements, it's not
>> in a standard format, and it's not easily pulled out in the XML.
>> (Such as by Jari's scripts)
>> 
>> I know that overall RFC version 3 format is done in RFC7991.
>> I looked through 7991, wondering if there is a way to do this simply, but
>> my naive eyes don't see anything that can be abused or extended.
>> It seems like we want to have additional "author"-like sections in the
>> <back>.  It seems that we would need a new section equivalent to references.
>> 
>> But, before offering a specific solution, I'd like to find out how we would
>> get consensus that this is a correct thing to do.  rfc-interest is not a wG.
>> Yes, I can write an Internet Draft, and having a clear problem statment is
>> probably a good thing.
>> I'm not sure who would approve: would it be the IESG/GenAD?
> 
> Are you thinking of something that would appear 
> 
> A) in the document
> B) in the metadata for the document (so, on the info pages or in the data tracker)
> C) in the index
> D) All or some combination of the above
> ?
> 
> Is what you’re looking for already on the data tracker pages for RFCs? I know that shows things like doc shepherd, but I don’t recall if it shows GenART or SecDir reviewers.
> 
> Thanks!
> Heather
> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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