Thanks Jean. That doesn't look like a significant workload, although
it could increase if a new, improved button was more attractive.
I also don't think that the current errata system really creates a
big workload. We have a big backlog, but that seems to be due to
low prioritization (and I think that's a collective error).
Regards
Brian
On 19-Dec-24 12:09, Jean Mahoney wrote:
Hi all,
On 12/16/24 3:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 17-Dec-24 09:54, Jean Mahoney wrote:
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.
It be interesting to hear from ADs whether this generates a significant
amount of email for them and/or the whole IESG.
[JM] When a reader clicks the mailto link on the RFC info page, it pops
up an email message with the subject line "Question about RFC NNNN".
I searched for that Subject string in mailarchive across all lists since
2016, and found 361 messages. Of those messages, I examined 35 threads:
21 threads were good discussions, 8 threads were spam (usually
consisting of just one message, but sometimes WG participants
responded), 5 posts that seemed like legitimate questions were ignored,
and 1 thread got heated over the topic of inclusive language.
We can't know if all these threads started from clicking the mailto link
on an RFC info page because "Question about RFC NNNN" is a pretty
generic subject, and also the submitter can change that line before
sending.
Best regards,
Jean
Brian
Best regards,
Jean
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
