--On Saturday, June 12, 2021 09:48 -0500 Spencer Dawkins at IETF
<spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> 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.
Spencer,
Suppose we are talking only about standards-track RFCs (other
categories and other streams might pose other issues) Now, I
regularly get queries about the interpretation of ancient
standards-track RFCs with my name on them, even ones that the
IETF considers absolute and ones that show addresses that have
not worked for a couple of decades. As few weeks ago, I even
got an inquiry about RFC 1425. Now, for any inquiry about 1425
that is not strictly about history, the answer is "see 5321" and
maybe a comment about EMAILCORE. But I got the inquiry and I
get inquiries about, e.g., 5321 and 6530 a lot more often.
However, the problem is the same as that for non-editorial
errata: these are standards-track, IETF consensus documents, and
no one should be giving an authoritative interpretation that
does not involve IETF consensus. Maybe the IESG is an adequate
interpreter of what that consensus would be if, e.g., a Last
Call were put out, maybe not.
But that suggests that, at least for standards-track documents,
having people ask questions directly of the authors and expect
authoritative responses is something we should be discouraging,
not encouraging. Perhaps, especially if the IESG needs more
work to do, we should be modifying the RFC boilerplate to
indicate that questions about the document should be addressed
to the IESG or some AD role account (one that we be sure to
redirect to the IESG if we eliminate areas). But making
authors, especially authors who have not been involved with the
subject matter or in the IETF for years, easier to find is
probably just the wrong idea.
john
john
>
> Best,
>
> Spencer
>
>
>> Bron.
>>
