RE: A quick poll about RFC 7221

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Fred, 

Well it *was* a quick poll 😊

I can add you to the category "This poll prompted me to read it". For those of you who like numbers, I got:

* Yes, read it
  12
* This poll prompted me to read it
  14
* No, not read it
  8

Given that the RFC was somewhat targeted at WG chairs (it had roots in a WG chair lunch session), I have learned something about marketing.

Best,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 18 September 2020 01:40
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: A quick poll about RFC 7221

And, it would appear, quickly closed it.

I went and read RFC 7221, saw nothing I disagreed with, and went to respond to your poll. Hmm, it was closed, so now I’m responding.

As to “are documents of this sort useful?”, yes, I believe they are. I’m thinking about doing something similar, probably in the v6ops wiki, because I find myself explaining very basic things repeatedly, and would find it helpful to have a link to point to. In my case, it’s “I have an internet draft that <proposes a new protocol>/<is operationally less than useful>/<etc>; may I have a slot on your agenda?” The rule in v6ops is that agenda slots are handed out to people
   -  with updated drafts (e.g., posted since the recent meeting)
   -  consistent with the working group charter 
   -  that are being discussed on the mailing list 
   -  by people that find them interesting and useful in their networks

not unlike other working groups. I probably write that sentence, or something like it, at least once for every meeting. There are individuals that I have said that to on multiple, even many, occasions.

So, yes, these can be useful. I’m less convinced that they need to be normative. But then RFC 7221 isn’t. It’s informative. 

> On Sep 12, 2020, at 1:10 PM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi WG chairs,
> 
> I'm just curious to see who has read RFC 7221.
> 
> Rather than clutter this list, I made a Doodle poll
> 
> https://doodle.com/poll/2w77cuh5h46vnkhk
> 
> Feel free to respond anonymously (e.g., give your name as "Anon 7" or some
> such) if you like.
> 
> There's nothing more to this than wondering whether RFCs like 7221 get read.
> I may come on later to whether this type of RFC is useful or could be made
> more useful.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Adrian
>