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

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Wed, 29 January 2020 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@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 EF36CF406F4 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 04:09:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 TC9IfiBcz8PL for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 04:09:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72e.google.com (mail-qk1-x72e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AFC0F406DA for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 04:09:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72e.google.com with SMTP id k6so16727284qki.5 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 04:09:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wB0FsreYKgEvBDUYS6uDo1veiAqSn8/SVdt6eI6oaQ0=; b=IbVpeKQIZEQ10LcXMpk2kut1IAMOirdywqkbHv33T18Zxye1nCf/VtFdwN3J5E6ZfC 4Ssxboaq1tg1ivdVsuhjI4p3BYHF7OxgH0/y6cyT99tOKKurjlHTxY6etfqC5Mr6Jlv9 gNa1dpdJelU/HFilfOC2dDv3hoJqdPuEMVIEmpT1Ybu2JhA8vBDS2DbAkwWD7pSenm4O AkkUySs3ApglFxj9J5IV835r3GWpJnyviNvsAdqDkwp+QQiSqYDPnJms4D2zLUZ853N4 RoCpEc1psxWOzDtCD7FMlQK+wdD+REJ8bQBBpOf248z5KiiBIOEW+qNyF1KN/FD9HSV5 GM0Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wB0FsreYKgEvBDUYS6uDo1veiAqSn8/SVdt6eI6oaQ0=; b=MJzY8Mp3ULX3/s+d/H4CDmxAP67KaqmZMcn+Mwt3EWg6hRpW/9qNivPEO6oyEbTN5G KnxUKAcoobnfeOILwk/R0ByXPsnmIk6S549zhZD4uPngXVynocy2ncrwwdiINhqwj2Mk UN46lroAcH+MlVUCktHIL9DM1qYQbXOlofuJ50acaa2RgdsWNjTkH3WUSGaD/aIehDz1 V3RdIQrl80jJPQStSt1rDwjZHgk0IagCc/VKWBr5lRv1d4ZtU5WvTox1f8vjLql9A2rn Lg6/CLW8PcI2dUvfn6CDl2xCE7Kyp/BWCUWfd1RKGhtCBIQggqkZaMDE68wC4oAjxSQI ZmHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXbNaU4VWLzpOGSl+bzMdYQRmWuHnsSAAVbjMRzxhqMrpIGupAt hi8sodBpo5kfn8ijCbkVUDvt9JQYyldYKbzFL8E=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwSb492GsiN0R27J535KvR033LoUdkCqFsDp1PJLfnYSNVO7YaJ5yYti/oqwT1xyLHyhrAdsDhP7LHFqIy9IhY=
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:e10e:: with SMTP id g14mr28534782qkm.430.1580299768226; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 04:09:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <eaecdc48-1234-ebf4-5240-676622916d7f@gmail.com>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 07:09:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA=duU2NVkg9VHxeSC_LLMtYtnaLuy4GqUCYpNrVsdwK7Ytq2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000052e8ae059d46366c"
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 12:09:27 -0000

Brian,

Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers,
Andy


On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 8:53 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.
>
> 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
>