Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Perhaps RFCs could list (within the document) who reviewed/approved
>>> them, and in which role/capacity the review had been performed.
>>
>> +10.
>>
>>> This could serve two purposes:
>>> - some minimal reward for those individuals taking the time to review the document,
>>> - encouragement for the reviewers to ensure that an adequate review has been performed based on the role/capacity in which they are acting.
>>
>> I've also suggested that the XML for the acknowledgement section be
>> structured so that we could extract this information better.
> All of this (reviewers, Shepard, AD reviews, ballots, etc.) is captured
> in the datatracker currently. I am not sure why it would also need to
> be in the document.
Because the datatracker is an ephermeral (by historic scales of time)
database, while the RFCs are etched in stone.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
