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

Paul Kyzivat <> Thu, 30 May 2019 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5CE1120163 for <>; Thu, 30 May 2019 13:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.199 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dFWEfXA45nJT for <>; Thu, 30 May 2019 13:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B7DE120220 for <>; Thu, 30 May 2019 13:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 278ABB81DDA; Thu, 30 May 2019 13:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2424B81DD6 for <>; Thu, 30 May 2019 13:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A8jOJ495w6-s for <>; Thu, 30 May 2019 13:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93707B81DD4 for <>; Thu, 30 May 2019 13:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PaulKyzivatsMBP.localdomain ( []) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x4UKlMVQ006637 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <>; Thu, 30 May 2019 16:47:24 -0400
References: <30895.1559243194@localhost>
From: Paul Kyzivat <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 16:47:22 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <30895.1559243194@localhost>
Content-Language: en-US
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: "rfc-interest" <>

On 5/30/19 3:06 PM, 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.
> 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)

Please keep in mind that some people are very concerned with being 
mentioned. If this isn't well defined they may try to game the system. 
Thoroughness of reviews varies widely. I don't know how to draw a line 
regarding what is sufficient to get a reference.


> 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