-----Original Message-----
From: Yaron Sheffer [mailto:yaronf(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 10:34 AM
To: MH Michael Hammer (5304); IETF
Subject: Re: How to get feedback on published RFCs [resending as plaintext]
On 19/07/16 15:16, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Yaron
Sheffer
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 7:54 AM
To: IETF
Subject: How to get feedback on published RFCs [resending as
plaintext]
Once an RFC is published, there is essentially no way for readers to
provide
feedback: what works, what are the implementation pitfalls, how does
the document relate to other technologies or even to other RFCs.
We IETF insiders usually know what is the relevant working group, and
can take our feedback there. Non-insiders though don't have any
contact point, and so will most likely keep their feedback to
themselves. These non-IETFers are the target audience of our
documents! Unfortunately, our so-called "Requests for Comments" are
anything but an invitation to submit comments.
A simple solution would be to include a pointer to the relevant working
group as a header or note to the RFC. There could be a standard "How to
comment" section. No need for additional tools or process.
Mke
Working groups are not forever, so giving a working group name or email
address is not very useful. Besides, not all comments (e.g.
implementation experience) are even appropriate to send to the WG list.
We get plenty of inappropriate comments to WG lists already. The world has not
come to an end. This may be an argument for having a parallel list that is kept
open and which is specifically for implementation/ops issues. I have this great
little cartoon over my desk with a picture of a building on fire. The caption
is "Worked fine in Dev, ops problem now". -
https://sethvargo.com/the-ten-myths-of-devops/worked-in-dev-ops-problem-now-7809f3cf.jpg
Mike
