Subject: [netmod] contact statement content

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:50:15 +0000

Lou and I were looking a draft today and were wondering if the YANG Module Template in 6087bis makes sense.  Here’s the template:

       contact
           "WG Web:   <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name/>
            WG List:  <mailto:[email-masked]>

            WG Chair: your-WG-chair
                      <mailto:[email-masked]>

            Editor:   your-name
                      <mailto:[email-masked]>";

6020 says:

   The "contact" statement provides contact information for the module.
   The argument is a string that is used to specify contact information
   for the person or persons to whom technical queries concerning this
   module should be sent, such as their name, postal address, telephone
   number, and electronic mail address.

6087biz says:

  The contact statement MUST be present.  If the module is contained in
   a document intended for Standards Track status, then the working
   group web and mailing information MUST be present, and the main
   document author or editor contact information SHOULD be present.  If
   additional authors or editors exist, their contact information MAY be
   present.  In addition, the Area Director and other contact
   information MAY be present.

It seems that our primary goal is to have questions directed to the working group.  Does it really make sense to have chairs or ADs listed?   That said, we understand listing authors, as they’re listed in RFCs too.

One related nit, is the “WG” acronym widely known enough to use it in the template?   How the following instead?

OLD
       contact
           "WG Web:   <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name/>
            WG List:  <mailto:[email-masked]>

NEW
        contact
           "Web Page:    <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name/>
             Mailing List:  <mailto:[email-masked]>

Kent (and Lou)

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 23:18:26 -0400

Kent Watsen <[email-masked]> writes:
> One related nit, is the "WG" acronym widely known enough to use it in
> the template?   How the following instead?
>
> OLD
>        contact

If you take out the acronym "WG", in what way does that make the
remaining words more descriptive?  I can see arguing for "WG Web Page"
and "WG Mailing List", though.

Dale

---

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 10:58:55 +0100

Hi Kent,

Below, you seemed to suggest also removing the WG Chair from the contact 
information, but it wasn't in your example update.  I would support 
removing it since I'm not sure that listing the WG chair(s) is that 
useful.  Presumably it is more desirable that any comments/questions go 
to the WG list or authors.

Thanks,
Rob

On 27/06/2016 23:50, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> Lou and I were looking a draft today and were wondering if the YANG 
> Module Template in 6087bis makes sense.  Here’s the template:
>
> contact
>
> It seems that our primary goal is to have questions directed to the 
> working group.  Does it really make sense to have chairs or ADs 
> listed?   That said, we understand listing authors, as they’re listed 
> in RFCs too.
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod