Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 10 August 2008 23:32 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7D223A687C; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FAE13A6824 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D7pXGVHtqYRy for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 224CA3A67EF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p2) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1KSKOd-000Gcl-HQ; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:32:23 -0400
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:32:18 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
Message-ID: <35F80F2ACF41F0D3E8EA9DA1@[192.168.1.110]>
In-Reply-To: <489F114F.2020803@gmx.de>
References: <34A11819D6D4490CA56321EC26704A32@BertLaptop> <p06240825c4c4b714140f@[165.227.249.203]> <489F114F.2020803@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
--On Sunday, August 10, 2008 6:03 PM +0200 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi, > > things I'd like to see done in IDs more consistently: > > In an Editorial Note on the front page: > > - state on which mailing list discussions should take place > (include mailing list archive and subscription links) > > - point to issues lists when available > > > References: > > - check that if the document obsoletes or updates another > document, that one appear in the references section, and make > sure that the document actually says what's going on with > respect to the other documents (such as "Normative Changes > from RFC xxxx") Of course, if one does this, the automated nits checker complains about a reference to an obsolete RFC :-( > - use symbolic references The RFC Editor is still flexible about this, IMO for good reason. It should not be the prerogative of this document, or even the IESG, to change the preference to a rule. >... > Code: > > - when using xml2rfc, add type parameters to artwork so that > things like ABNF can be automatically extracted and checked FWIW, I continue to believe, based on experience with a few fairly large and complex documents (most recently rfc2821bis) that the xml2rfc approach of treating ABNF as a special type of artwork is seriously broken for at least two reasons: (1) It effectively forces the author to do formatting on a line by line basis, which is not what generic markup is supposed to be all about and is pathological for pretty-print applications (including HTML and Postscript output) because it prevents taking advantage of different line length and wrapping options. That problem gets more severe if productions extend over several lines and/or contain comments. (2) It prevents indexing and use of XML elements to identify and organize portions of the ABNF (e.g., distinguishing rule names (LHS) from definitions (RHS) and comments). For both of these, use of hanging <list> elements can actually work better than the artwork model even those that option has more than its share of disadvantages as well. While I understand that this is a sufficiently large change to xml2rfc that I should not hold my breath, I think it would be very unfortunate to use the Checklist and/or its automatic instantiation to aggressively push a sometimes-unfortunate practice. > Versioning: > > - (this probably is controversial :-) - keep an appendix that > gives a short overview of what changed compared to previous > drafts Yep, it is controversial. Good idea sometimes, bad idea others, hence probably a poor checklist guideline beyond, perhaps, "please consider keeping...". best, john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Pete Resnick
- Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist IETF Chair
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Pete Resnick
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- RE: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen - IETF
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- RE: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen - IETF
- RE: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Theodore Tso
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Thomas Narten
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bill McQuillan
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Paul Hoffman
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Spencer Dawkins
- More example TLDs in 2606bis? (was: Call for revi… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Keith Moore
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Ted Hardie
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Keith Moore
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bob Braden
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Eliot Lear
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Keith Moore
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Paul Hoffman
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Julian Reschke
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Julian Reschke
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Lars Eggert
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Henrik Levkowetz
- ID desires and TOOLS stuff [was: Re: Call for rev… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Julian Reschke
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… SM
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Mixed case (was: Call for review of proposed upda… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Russ Housley
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Robert Elz