Hi all,
On 12/16/24 2:13 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Jean,
At 08:47 AM 16-12-2024, Jean Mahoney wrote:
From the RPC side, there was concern that consumers of RFCs are quite
different from RFC producers, and it is not helpful to drop a consumer
with a question into the WG/RG process. The stream manager response
was that the integrity of the WG/RG process could not be risked with a
separate discussion forum, and therefore any proposed new system
should *not* aim to address the broader issue of supporting RFC
consumers who have a question, but solely concentrate on errata reports.
Some time back, I noticed the "Discuss this RFC" on the "info" web page
for a RFC. The mailing list address to which the comment would be sent
was i...@ietf.org. I assume that is because the source of the RFC was
"non working group". I wondered whether it was optimal to advertise the
IESG email address as the contact point.
[JM] Mailing list information for each RFC was added to the RFC info
pages in 2016. The i...@ietf.org list is provided as the contact for
Legacy RFCs in addition to non-working group RFCs that do not have an
area associated with them. For non-WG RFCs with an area, the contact is
<area>-a...@ietf.org.
Best regards,
Jean
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
