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

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