Taking both Robert’s and Dale’s comments into account, I believe that there are
two 6087bis updates:
1) Remove the text “In addition, the Area Director and other contact
information MAY be present”, as there is no reason to hint that listing ADs
makes sense.
2) Update the template to:
WG Web Page: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name/>
WG Mailing List: <mailto:[email protected]>
Editor: your-name [Optional]
mailto:[email protected]
Author: your-name [Optional]
<mailto:[email protected]>
In the above, I also added an “Author” example and added “[Optional]” to more
clearly indicate that those fields are not required.
Makes sense?
Kent // as a contributor
From: Robert Wilton <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 5:58 AM
To: Kent Watsen <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [netmod] contact statement content
Hi Kent,
Below, you seemed to suggest also removing the WG Chair from the contact
information, but it wasn't in your example update. I would support removing it
since I'm not sure that listing the WG chair(s) is that useful. Presumably it
is more desirable that any comments/questions go to the WG list or authors.
Thanks,
Rob
On 27/06/2016 23:50, Kent Watsen wrote:
Lou and I were looking a draft today and were wondering if the YANG Module
Template in 6087bis makes sense. Here’s the template:
contact
"WG Web:
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name/><http://tools.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name/>
WG List:
<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
WG Chair: your-WG-chair
<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
Editor: your-name
<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>";
6020 says:
The "contact" statement provides contact information for the module.
The argument is a string that is used to specify contact information
for the person or persons to whom technical queries concerning this
module should be sent, such as their name, postal address, telephone
number, and electronic mail address.
6087bis says:
The contact statement MUST be present. If the module is contained in
a document intended for Standards Track status, then the working
group web and mailing information MUST be present, and the main
document author or editor contact information SHOULD be present. If
additional authors or editors exist, their contact information MAY be
present. In addition, the Area Director and other contact
information MAY be present.
It seems that our primary goal is to have questions directed to the working
group. Does it really make sense to have chairs or ADs listed? That said, we
understand listing authors, as they’re listed in RFCs too.
One related nit, is the “WG” acronym widely known enough to use it in the
template? How the following instead?
OLD
contact
"WG Web:
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name/><http://tools.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name/>
WG List:
<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
NEW
contact
"Web Page:
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name/><http://tools.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name/>
Mailing List:
<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
Kent (and Lou)
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
