Re: [apps-discuss] process and editing questions: RFC errata

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Wilde" <[e-mail]>
To: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; "REST Discuss"
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:24 PM
> hello tom.
>
> On 2013-02-21 17:40 , t.petch wrote:
> > In passing, some lines of formal definition exceed the permitted
length
> > for an RFC line so a little reorganising will be needed, probably
best
> > sooner rather than later as they will need validating before the I-D
can
> > advance and reorganising can introduce syntax errors.
>
> thanks for noting,
>
https://raw.github.com/dret/I-D/master/xml-patch/draft-wilde-xml-patch-0
5.txt
> should look better (not yet submitted).
>
> > I may have missed the errata but I cannot recall a reference to them
on
> > the apps-discuss list.  If they are modified and then approved,
which
> > usually happens, then your I-D should follow suit so the sooner they
are
> > processed the better.  Which might mean you requesting the AD to set
the
> > wheels in motion, explaining why timeliness matters.
>
> the errata are still just in the "reported" state,
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5261 lists the 4 i
have
> submitted. 3 of those now are actually part of the updates to RFC 5261
> in the draft, so i am wondering whether these errata are needed
anymore?
> ideally, my draft would update RFC 5261, and then the errata would be
> redundant, right?

Yes, the errata would be redundant but my instinct would still be to go
forward with them.  They are simple, tightly defined, and so easier to
discuss than a whole I-D (even if yours is pleasantly short).  You would
get a clearer outcome from a discussion of an erratum than from an I-D.

Tom Petch

>
> > And, out of curiosity, do you expect people to use XPath 1.0 or 2.0?
I
> > ask because in Netconf, I was keen to specify 2.0 and not 1.0, the
> > handling of namespaces in 2.0 seemed superior, but was told we could
not
> > because there were no implementations for people to use, that 2.0
was a
> > great idea that had not happened (mmm IPv6?).  The Normative
reference
> > for Yang remains the 1999 version.
>
> 2.0 is a vast improvement over 1.0, but it also is much more complex
to
> implement. when 1.0 was released, XML was all the rage and there were
a
> lot of people implementing specs. when 2.0 was released, the XML hyper
> curve already trended downward, plus it's just harder to implement. as
a
> result it's true that it's surprisingly hard to find implementations
of
> 2.0. so while personally, i always use 2.0 because you can write
better
> code, it's true that in specs, if you can get away with 1.0, it may be
a
> good idea to stick to it.
>
> cheers,
>
> dret.
>
> --
> erik wilde | mailto:[e-mail]  -  tel:[phone] |
>             | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
>             | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
>