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

Sarah B <> Fri, 31 May 2019 00:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD7112016F for <>; Thu, 30 May 2019 17:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.2
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hCtYnuU7pwgB for <>; Thu, 30 May 2019 17:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 336851200B4 for <>; Thu, 30 May 2019 17:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6EB8B81EF6; Thu, 30 May 2019 17:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DD1B81EF5; Thu, 30 May 2019 17:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E4yODI5_mkDp; Thu, 30 May 2019 17:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2AB9B81EF4; Thu, 30 May 2019 17:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F5A28001B; Thu, 30 May 2019 20:42:06 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nr3tnxq_lxES; Thu, 30 May 2019 20:42:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (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 <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 17:41:47 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <30895.1559243194@localhost> <>
To: Heather Flanagan <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] acknowledging reviewers name in RFCs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Sender: "rfc-interest" <>

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?


> On May 30, 2019, at 3:03 PM, Heather Flanagan <> wrote:
> Sent from my iPad
>> On May 30, 2019, at 12:06, Michael Richardson <> 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
>>, 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 mailing list