Subject: [email-masked] mailing list closed, yet asks for comments?

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 15:10:27 -0700

[email-masked] is a closed list for members only. So why are they asking
for comments on IETF lists?

Its a bit confusing, a post to the ietf-announce mailing list called for
comments to be sent to: [email-masked].

 "...Please send comments to [email-masked]. For comments on individual
   drafts, please include the relevant document filename in the subject
   line. ...."

What's the point of the request if we can't participate in the
discussion or know if their are points to reply to?

(Copy of original email below...)

> From: IAB Executive Administrative Manager <[email-masked]>
> To: "IETF Announcement List" <[email-masked]>

This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on
the RFC Format Drafts. These documents are being considered for
publication as Informational RFCs within the IAB stream.  The suggested
reading order is:

1. The big picture

- - - Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework",
   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc-framework/

2. The underlying vocabulary

- - - Hoffman, P., "The 'XML2RFC' version 3 Vocabulary",
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-xml2rfc/

3. The outputs

- - - Hildebrand, J. and P. Hoffman, "HyperText Markup
   Language Request For Comments Format”,
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-html-rfc/

- - - Flanagan, H., "Requirements for Plain Text RFCs",
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc-plaintext/

- - - Hansen, T., Masinter, L., and M. Hardy, "PDF for
   an RFC Series Output Document Format”,
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf/

- - - Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC",
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-svg-rfc/

4. Generalized requirements

- - - Flanagan, H., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs",
   https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-rfc-nonascii-00.pdf

- - - Flanagan, H., “CSS Requirements for RFCs”,
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc-css/

5. Workflow and tools (note that the examples draft will
   not become an RFC, but is necessary for the project)

- - - Hildebrand, J. and P. Hoffman, "RFC v3 Prep Tool Description",
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfcv3-preptool/

- - - Hoffman, P. and T. Hansen, "Examples of the ‘XML2RFC'
   Version 2 and 3 Vocabularies”,
   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-rfcexamples/

6. The Statements of Work

- - - http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/rfced/

The Call for Comment will last until 2016-03-10. Please send comments to
[email-masked]. For comments on individual drafts, please include the
relevant document filename in the subject line.

-- 

Doug Royer - (http://DougRoyer.US)
[email-masked]
714-989-6135

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 17:30:30 -0500

Your note came though just fine on the IAB mail list.  Perhaps you also CCed or BCCed a list restricted posting rights.

Russ

---

From: Cindy Morgan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:31:58 -0800

Hi Doug,

Your message to the IAB list was initially put into moderation, but it was sent to the IAB list.  In this case, there was about a 20 minute delay between you sending the message, and me releasing it from moderation.

The practice on the IAB list is that messages from people who haven't sent to that list before are moderated at first (to reduce spam), but are then added to the whitelist when the message is released from moderation.

Your request to subscribe to the IAB list was rejected, because the membership of that list is restricted to the IAB. I apologize if the rejection message from Mailman made that more confusing than it needed to be.

That said, anyone can send messages to the IAB list (though their initial message to the list will have to wait for moderation).

Best regards,
Cindy

Cindy Morgan / IAB Executive Administrative Manager
48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117 / Fremont CA 94538
T: +1.510.492.4085 / F: +1.510.492.4001 / https://www.iab.org
----------
Managed by Association Management Solutions (AMS);
Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning
Website: http://www.amsl.com

> On Feb 11, 2016, at 2:10 PM, Doug Royer <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 19:38:39 -0700

Thank you for your response, however the question remains. Why ask for
comments (implying discussion), to a closed list? I can not see my posts
and I can not see any replies. It seems odd to me.

Is there a better OPEN list where these IAB drafts that are being posted
to the IETF be discussed?

Generally are not ALL IETF drafts being called for comment supposed to
be discussed on OPEN lists?

Thanks!

--

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:43:17 +1300

Doug,

http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

That's where these drafts have been discussed extensively. Note that
it's *not* an IETF list, because RFCs are for a wider community than
the IETF.

    Brian

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:18:33 -0700

*Thank you*

I would like to suggest that in future notices, it lists where to look
up the comments? The only email addresses in the draft was [email-masked]
and the author, and the notice only had [email-masked].

I noticed the draft a few weeks ago and have been planning to follow it
and was unable to find any discussion list for the draft.

Do we need a [email-masked] mailing list for the development of non-wg
drafts?

--

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:45:20 +0100

> it's *not* an IETF list, because RFCs are for a wider community than

But the point remains. The feedback should be public; right now it is 
not. I recommend to use rfc-interest instead of the IAB mailing list.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:55:55 -0800

> not. I recommend to use rfc-interest instead of the IAB mailing list.

I think the original concern has gotten missed.  The IAB's own direction 
was:

 > Please send comments to [email-masked].

While the basis for that direction is understandable, it means that the 
IAB did not direct comments to a public forum.

This is worth considering as a general issue, not just for the current 
topic.

While I imagine there really are times that warrant not having a public 
exchange, for communications from any IETF body, the default should be 
to specify a public discussion forum for comments, not a 
restricted-access address.

Otherwise, which public list to use is hidden (insider) knowledge, 
effectively serving to restrict who participates.

d/