Thanks Dave,
As coincidence would have it, Yaron @ IETF has recently published a thought piece on this.
We talk to him tomorrow morning.
Thanks for thinking of us. We'll let you know if this goes anywhere.
Dan
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:38 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304)
<MHammer@xxxxxx> wrote:
> I have no specific objection to doing something. I wasn’t planning on being
> the one to do anything anyways.
These folk: https://hypothes.is/
have been at it a while and might be amiable to an ietf
standardization effort. Adding in my contact there.
...
The history of web annotation is not very promising thus far, but who
knows what could happen if it emerges at the right time?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_annotation
>
>
>
> I do have a concern about your comment about getting a summary of perhaps a
> few years of commentary. The problem with tools that annotate comments
> against the RFC is that anyone looking at just those comments does not get
> the complete picture. Even if the working group is closed, pointing people
> to the group/archive gives someone the opportunity to get a more complete
> picture. Your comment may also be taken as a reason for keeping mailing
> lists open for an extended period even after the working group is no longer
> active. Every once in a while therew ill be a post to the DKIM or SPF lists
> by someone with a question or comment – even though those groups have been
> inactive for some time.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 10:30 AM
> To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> Cc: Yaron Sheffer; IETF
> Subject: Re: How to get feedback on published RFCs [resending as plaintext]
>
>
>
> Doing nothing is always an option. These kind folks are proposing doing
> something, though, rather than nothing. This makes sense, because the
> working group might no longer exist, and email archives are useless for
> getting a summary of perhaps a few years of commentary that may have
> occurred.
>
>
>
> Do you have a specific objection to doing something, or do you just not want
> to have to be the one to do it? :)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:16 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) <MHammer@xxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] 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
>
>
--
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org