On 20/07/2016 02:13, Miles Fidelman wrote: > On 7/19/16 7:54 AM, Yaron Sheffer wrote: > >> 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. >> >> There is a number of tools now that allow "web annotations" (i.e., comments) on various published documents. I submitted a >> draft [1] recently that proposes to enable annotations on the "tools" version of our RFCs. Technically, this is a trivial >> change. From a process point of view it is more complicated and merits discussion on this list. Sec. 6 of the draft allows you >> to see for yourself what such annotations would look like. >> > > Maybe a silly observation, but we might look at the HTML "Living Standard" (https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/) - as > maintained by WHATWG. Their process seems to have the benefit of working reasonably well over time. If that is your impression, I have to wonder whether you've ever tried to "dialogue" with whatwg on a matter that challenges their received wisdom. I don't think that is a good model for the IETF to follow. Brian