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

"Andrew G. Malis" <> Thu, 30 May 2019 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5D4120127 for <>; Thu, 30 May 2019 14:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.798
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.198, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cAZW2SNFF3E9 for <>; Thu, 30 May 2019 14:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F025612004D for <>; Thu, 30 May 2019 14:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF1EB80904; Thu, 30 May 2019 14:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD79B80904 for <>; Thu, 30 May 2019 14:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LhfugONt0Hrf for <>; Thu, 30 May 2019 14:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82b]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B88AB80874 for <>; Thu, 30 May 2019 14:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z19so8829880qtz.13 for <>; Thu, 30 May 2019 14:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HYtA6izmXgxwKP0rYqdDspcpszXPuc8bC+Bw3mip9YQ=; b=S8kSbPUI2NH5xXG3/wZy/vZZkO3D5MdiLNpFAgegNfbK/ikEWj6BEHZk0mm5vmQnPy 46XYM7X+Nzu2AAAJKZxeXskfFXzpHyhxLKY+nlAVPeIS+J4yqLuEaV7fI6BjrrQtj7Cx FNuhaiiHn6Co3U88nmcQOXe83llsJYSMcc3xfyn+mMysvfopZb4k4BNI0e0/uJCqiu6o PadNCvLFtHXaTDO5NRmVDphCc4sVO6+DxjCwEyy2m4/7V7Zc8QvKyTsYDVG1yqJnZIZs XZDl9x+NYCrdMp9unsmEo4JKoYIGwe4+CA+Kg6FAG1cuxqQeyzFhTbUPLUQlUY0qF4jH K7CA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HYtA6izmXgxwKP0rYqdDspcpszXPuc8bC+Bw3mip9YQ=; b=ENt+DyqT/x10r7/vx8Z07BX0c9wQ84yR0rqa9Mz1fCJyX9ls5GTCmPQZyWifqjCrYR DZE92Kh+c0hNASZcFqzGkneyXnvUrwoChg99vPipNoq1uV/hQyW55wvLkN8j3Hi3yx98 3T8lsh8ZQj6+LXy/V08WE03mhD1dHWPYVg/AVZlEz7Nz+IrUlTtj5kDgxPd8803asxfB 8ujlXAlyj0msV7lfVa4FnUJsX5ChhRHc1Y+HUtsMIChZHYaRyKcX8H2ij9H2bd8KBPcN NSEs5ma0dO5dBRKUW7l+bJhjcDgYyvKwM+i5Sss5nUGtHjUIqmI1iSjy2LUIFZf7KVKh Eucg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWPgs6tzn77IR0b0HvykP8aaQF44iSMm5vZ8SHHQ9bWQgQrQaGa WItoD9RI6ScS7pR8PSepObHrlvtV2QOpeEOSlzc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw8/ERyW0y07J9xVNrVWP75IP0ty6ngvDlEo1TTTNeICb+lF/cSyx605TbFFWH/kiXP2cEvJuntIHy5HZIbI0I=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:93c7:: with SMTP id g7mr5529738qvg.4.1559251668256; Thu, 30 May 2019 14:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <30895.1559243194@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <30895.1559243194@localhost>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 17:27:37 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
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: <>, <>
Cc: RFC Interest <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3836748677093441161=="
Sender: "rfc-interest" <>


This sounds reasonable to me, it's useful information about an RFC's
development. And it would be less ad-hoc than the current Acknowledgements

Much of this information is already in the Datatracker. Perhaps the
generation of this section can be at least partially automated by pulling
information from there?


On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 3:06 PM Michael Richardson <>

> 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.
> 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?
> --
> Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest mailing list