It does seem a bit absurd to me that there isn't a specific email
address given in RFCs for questions/comments, which should typically
be a WG email. Currently, the only choices for a random reader would
be the authors' email addresses or ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org. True, WGs don't
last
forever, but their mailing lists commonly have a longer lifetime than
the WG itself, questions and comments on earlier RFCs while the WG
that produced them was still active are particularly likely and
useful, and, when the WG email list is "closed", it could actually be
forwarded to a more general email address...
There are advantages and disadvantages to email and "annotation". I
would particularly note that both need spam filtration.
Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Yaron Sheffer
<yaronf(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
Thanks,
Yaron