In <B7C1DB00235F6E808E8B60A4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > --On mandag, januar 10, 2005 19:47:43 +0100 Tom Petch > <nwnetworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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website (see: http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html#anchor6 ), it explicitly says: Avoid text that will become outdated after RFC is published.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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf