Hi, Bron,
On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 8:52 AM Bron Gondwana <brong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Anyways, the IETF already has mail forwarding infrastructure, per the alias expanders for all the drafts. The difference is between "a static contact address" (which I see some value in having for every RFC that can be updated or directed to the most relevant working group if the RFC is abandoned by its original authors), and an address which people might start signing up as the target for significant volumes of non-person-to-person traffic.
Right. So I was thinking of a static contact address in my previous note.
I think we're back to the question of what we hope to accomplish, which might be to have some contact for each RFC (or each standards-track RFC, or something. Mumbles) that could direct traffic on where to go next.
I think the IESG (as a whole or as individual ADs, if you're good at guessing which one) is the last resort now, for people who want to follow up about an RFC and who can figure that out.
This would be somewhat similar to having the IESG as contact for (some) IANA registries, rather than a person or a WG that might conclude.
Does that make sense? Not as "the goal", but as one possible goal that might be worth considering.
Best,
Spencer
Bron.
