Subject: [rfc-i] Where to put a notice saying where a draft should be discussed?

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 14:24:00 -0400

Is there a note somewhere that would tell me the canonical place to specify
the mailing list on which an ID should be discussed?

It seems that this should be something every draft states (at least until
adoption by a WG). But I couldn't find an authoritative statement...
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 20:33:55 +0200

Many drafts have something like a Note to Readers right after the abstract.
For an example, see: draft-ietf-quic-transport-22.txt
(This discusses both the WG and the Github presence.)

I have reproduced the way this was input in kramdown-rfc below; if you don’t use that, you can find the XML in the usual place.

Grüße, Carsten

[…]
--- abstract

This document defines the core of the QUIC transport protocol.  Accompanying
documents describe QUIC's loss detection and congestion control and the use of
TLS for key negotiation.

--- note_Note_to_Readers

Discussion of this draft takes place on the QUIC working group mailing list
([email-masked]), which is archived at
\<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=quic\>.

Working Group information can be found at \<https://github.com/quicwg\>; source
code and issues list for this draft can be found at
\<https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/labels/-transport\>.

--- middle

# Introduction
[…]

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 14:38:12 -0400

Thanks, I will follow your example.

I would suggest that this become a codified practice though!

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 2:33 PM Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I have reproduced the way this was input in kramdown-rfc below; if you
> don’t use that, you can find the XML in the usual place.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> […]
> --- abstract
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:21:48 +0200

Am 13.08.2019 um 20:38 schrieb Phillip Hallam-Baker:
> ...

+1000

I really think it's kind of strange to produce an Internet Draft without
telling the readers where to post feedback.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 18:28:15 -0400

Well, if it is a working group draft, or aimed at a specific working 
group, it is usually pretty clear.
Conversely, if it is a new idea the author may not know where the 
appropriate place to discuss the draft really is.  Finding that out may 
be part of the reason for writing the draft.

So sure, when it is known and not obvious, indicate it.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:32:31 +0200

> group, it is usually pretty clear.

It might be totally non-obvious to readers not familiar with the IETF.

> So sure, when it is known and not obvious, indicate it.

I don't think it's ever obvious to non-IETF people.

Also, when there's no obvious place, it might be good just define one
(personal email, issue tracker, the IETF area's mailing list...).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 19:49:51 -0400

> I don't think it's ever obvious to non-IETF people.

It is not obvious to me where I should send errata on PKIX items. The WG
closed long ago and can't be re-opened.

We probably need to think about this at IETF level because one of the main
issues that keeps coming up with IETF specs is maintenance after the draft
is shipped. Only insiders really know about errata.

> (personal email, issue tracker, the IETF area's mailing list...).

I think RFCs should probably have a note specifying where to send
comments/errata. It is not necessary for it to be the WG list. in fact it
is probably best if it isn't because then it can be aliased more easily.
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 10:31:10 +1000

> telling the readers where to post feedback.

Until the tools have better support for this, that is what will happen.  With metadata in drafts, this could be automatically generated.  The hack we use for QUIC is hardly ideal.

I understand that there are other more pressing issues for tools.  Is there somewhere that this sort of feature request might be registered, so it isn't lost?

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 09:31:55 -0500

> I understand that there are other more pressing issues for tools.  Is there somewhere that this sort of feature request might be registered, so it isn't lost?
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/newticket

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 18:03:32 +0200

Am 14.08.2019 um 16:31 schrieb Robert Sparks:
>> Until the tools have better support for this, that is what will
>> happen.  With metadata in drafts, this could be automatically
>> generated.  The hack we use for QUIC is hardly ideal.
>>
>> I understand that there are other more pressing issues for tools.  Is
>> there somewhere that this sort of feature request might be registered,
>> so it isn't lost?

I would argue that it needs to be discussed in the context of RFC
7991bis, thus
<https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues>.

Best regards, Julian