In
<B7C1DB00235F6E808E8B60A4(_at_)gloppen(_dot_)hjemme(_dot_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> writes:
--On mandag, januar 10, 2005 19:47:43 +0100 Tom Petch
<nwnetworks(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com> wrote:
I believe any individual submission should have a publicly identified,
publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed in the I-D
announcement, so that we can raise issues, hopefully resolve them,
before last call. Then a default yes could make sense.
So do I. It's one of the pieces of advice I always give to I-D writers.
It is, unfortunately, not often followed.
Well, that may well depend on how far along the I-D is, but in the ID
checklist section 3.8 found on the rfc-editor's website (see:
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html#anchor6 ), it explicitly says:
Avoid text that will become outdated after RFC is published.
Examples include non-permanent URLs, mentions of specific mailing
lists as places to send comments on a document, or referring to
specific WGs as a place to perform specific future actions (e.g.,
reviewing followup documents).
So, even if an I-D starts out with information about where to discuss
the draft, it needs to be removed once it gets close to being final.
Also, even if the I-D has this information, it isn't in the
announcement.
Maybe it would be a good idea to have a manditory section in all I-Ds
that lists this information, and *only* this information. Then that
info could be "easily" put into the announcement and the RFC-editor
could remove that section before publication.
-wayne
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf