For some reason, we continue to make followup discussion a matter of
accident, rather than facilitation.
In line with Don's suggesttion:
We ought to make sure that all I-Ds and RFCs contain contact
information, not just for the authors, but also for the group context,
such as the mailing list.
And we should not rely on the good thoughts of random contributors,
but rather we should make sure that ALL our documents make it easy for
new folks to come on board.
Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 11:24:28 AM, you wrote:
JS> Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote:
I sometimes put the working group name on drafts also. But an RFC is
never issued by a working group. It is issued by the I* after IESG
review and usually after IETF Last Call. I'm dubious about putting the
WG name in the RFC but if that were done,
JS> As a practical matter, if one wants to find people to discuss an RFC
JS> with, knowing what WG it came from (if any) can save steps. The
JS> authors' addresses are included, of course, but those sometimes go stale
JS> before the WG closes down.
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>