Re: [Ext] Re: [rfc-i] Evolving document sources over a long time (Re: Comments on draft-roach-bis-documents-00)

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 7:13 PM

David,

A good suggestion, but it might be easier for IANA to just have two
subsections in the IANA Considerations section:

- What IANA Now Needs to Do (this could be nothing, but should be
explicit)

- What IANA Already Did in RFC XXXX

and keep this section identical to the original RFC.

Of course, we should ask Michelle what she would like to see! :-)

<tp>

Why?

The purpose of an RFC is to provide information for the community so my
starting point is what is it that the community wants to see.  Once that
is determined, then then is the time to ask Michele and company what
they want to see to ensure that the section meets those requirements.

I make frequent reference to the IANA Considerations section of RFC
going back decades, because they constrain what can and cannot be done
now, and it is a pain when the information is scattered across multiple
RFC, or when the key RFC is badly worded, ambiguous.  Examples of  the
latter keep cropping up.

So, I would say that an IANA Considerations should be complete and
should never say this is what we did last time and here is a delta for
you to (mis-)apply.

A minor example of this is RFC7950 which many cite in the IANA
Considerations of an I-D containing a YANG module in order that the YANG
modules is registered with IANA.  Wrong!  All that RFC7950 says is that
the procedure is described in RFC6020 so you have to get out RFC6020 to
know what to do and the sort-of-obsolete RFC6020 then has to be a
Normative Reference of the new I-D.  Far better if the authors of
RFC7950 had included the procedure for registering a YANG module;
instead, RFC6020 remains a Normative Reference unless and until a YANG
1.2 or YANG 2.0 appears and addresses the problem.

Tom Petch.

Cheers,
Andy


On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 1:51 PM David Noveck <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Good point.
>
> The IANA Considerations section in non-update RFC's primarily serves
as a
> means if requesting IANA actions.  When you consider how this maps to
bis
> documents and bis-like updates, there is a conflict between IANA's
> expectations and Adam's desire to have the updated document be current
as a
> whole, with discussion of changes put in an appendix,  It might be
possible
> to point out the actions required in the appendix but I have been
thinking
> of the following as an alternative:
>
>    - Create, at the start of the IANA Considerations section, a new
>    subsection entitled "What IANA now needs to do".
>    - For the rest of the section, organize as it would be with updates
>    included in appropriate places, but distinguish, using
tense/auxiliaries
>    between things that IANA has already done and those that it has yet
to do.
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:03 AM Michelle Cotton
<[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Additional comments related to IANA Considerations for bis documents:
>> What is most important is that the document clearly states what
should be
>> updated and what should not.  We have seen varying instructions in
bis
>> documents where some replace all references and some replace just
some.  If
>> authors can give clear and accurate instructions on what IANA is
being
>> requested to do, that is appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope this is helpful.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Michelle
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *ietf <[e-mail]> on behalf of Adam Roach <
>> [e-mail]>
>> *Date: *Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 2:00 PM
>> *To: *David Noveck <[e-mail]>, Magnus Westerlund <
>> [e-mail]>
>> *Cc: *Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>, Carsten Bormann <
>> [e-mail]>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <[e-mail]>
>> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [rfc-i] Evolving document sources over a long
time
>> (Re: Comments on draft-roach-bis-documents-00)
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback! These seem like reasonable changes for the
next
>> version.
>>
>>
>>
>> /a
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/19/19 9:54 AM, David Noveck wrote:
>>
>> Thanks to everyone for their suggestions.   Now that I've followed up
on
>> many of them, I'd like to tell everybody what I've found so that
people can
>> consider the implicationss for Adam's document and for the processing
of
>> upcoming updates to RFC5661.   In particular, use of the existing v1
tools
>> has proved quite helpful although it is not a panacea.
>>
>>
>>
>> So what I've found is that:
>>
>>    - Even with the v1 xml2rfc, the .xml that I have gotten for
RFC5661
>>    from the RFC editor cannot be successfully processed.   Whether
you use the
>>    existing v2 xml2rfc  or the v1 xml2rfc available on the web,
considerable
>>    effort is required to get to an xml that can be processed
successfully.
>>     The xml file I received from the RFC editor is attached as
rfc5661Base.xml
>>    while the one I arrived at is attached as rfc5661Ready.xml.
>>    - Processing of the best xml that I have been able to arrive at
for
>>    rfc5661 using the current v2 xml2rfc results in a document which,
when
>>    compared with rfc5661 using rfcdiff,  has a large number of
differences
>>    which might be considered spurious.  Although I don't feel any of
these are
>>    in fact spurious, they are numerous enough that it might be hard
to make
>>    this determination quickly.  The largest part of these differences
concern
>>    text tables which rfcdiff flags as different even in cases in
which the
>>    tables seem identical.   Also, there re small formtting
differences that
>>    resul from the use of the v2 xml2rfc as well as issues arsing from
>>    different handling policies for hyphenated words.  I've attached
the
>>    resulting .txt file as rfc5661Ready.txt so that people can rfcdiff
it
>>    against rfc5661.
>>    - Processing of the best xml that I have been able to arrive at
for
>>    rfc5661 using the v1 xml2rfc available on the web results in a
document
>>    which, when compared with rfc5661 using rfcdiff, shows a small
number of
>>    differences but is not identical to rfc5661.   Besides the small
set of
>>    difference mentioned below, common to both v1 and v2 xml2rfc, the
main
>>    issue concerns a number of cases in which the xml (and rfc5661)
has two
>>    spaces following a period while the v1 xml2rfc has only a single
space.
>>     This is a formatting change but if it is considered "spurious",
then that
>>    spurious change is unavoidable when using the v1 xml2rfc.  It can
be
>>    avoided using the v2 xml2rfc but that causes many more differences
with
>>    rfc5661, as discusssed above.   I've attached the resulting .txt
file as
>>    rfc5661ReadyV1.txt so that people can rfcdiff it against rfc5661.
>>    - In addition there are a few differences that appear whether the
v1
>>    or v2 xml2rfc is used.
>>
>>
>>    - One source of these concerrns the capitalization (or not) of the
>>       words "profile" and "type" in the titles of many
stringprep-related
>>       sections.  Since RFC5661 uses different forms in the section
itself and in
>>       the table-of-contents, it is impossible to avoid one of those
being
>>       different from RFC5661.
>>       - Other problems arise from the different lengths of
>>       xml2rfc-generated introductory material before the table of
contents.   The
>>       page count is different for v1 and v2 but both differ from
rfc5661..
>>       - References to ancohor are handled differently in v1 and v2
but
>>       neither can be made to match the results in rfc5661.
>>       - Another problem is that rfcdiff appears to have a bug
resulting
>>       in it showing that a significant piece of the definition of
CB_COMPOUND is
>>       missing, even though the .txt file shows no such difference :-(
>>
>> Based on my experences, I'd like to suggest:
>>
>>    - That the following addition be made to item 3 in section 3.1 of
>>    Adam's document.
>>
>> In evaluating whether such disqualifying changes have occurred, it is
>> intended that changes due solely to changes in the tools used to
generate
>> RFC .txt files be allowed.  In addition, issues resulting from
changes made
>> by the RFC editor but not reflected in the xml file for the RFC not
>> interfere with IESG consideration of the document and can be made, if
>> necessary, by the RFC editor after the revised documment is approved
for
>> publication.
>>
>>
>>    - That the following addition be made to item 6 in section 3.1 of
>>    Adam's document.
>>
>> This will include the AD's determination that the requirements of
item 3
>> above have been met.
>>
>>
>>    - That, if possible, somebody should fix the bug in rfcdiff noted
>>    above.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 5:22 AM David Noveck <[e-mail]
>> <davenoveck@gmail..com>> wrote:
>>
>> >> For RFC5661 and documents derived from it using Adam’s procedure,
that
>> ship has already sailed :-(..
>>
>> > As the references section needs to be updated anyway (for the
DOIs),
>> I’m not sure this is really true.  Or, if it is,
>>
>> > RFC 5661 maybe isn’t really a candidate for this process, because
it
>> may be impractical to re-generate the exact
>>
>> > numbering that RFC 5661 used.
>>
>> I had been assuming that you could turn off sortrefs and construct a
>> reference section in the exact order that the
>>
>> v1 tool.   I'll try some experientsto validate that approach.
>>
>>
>> .> > > Since RFC 5661, we also got DOIs on RFCs, so it is inevitable
>> there are a lot of diffs.
>> >>
>> >> It is not inevitable as shown by the fact that I didn't run into
that
>> issue.   It's kind of nice to know that there was an issue out there
that I
>> didn't run into :-)
>> >>
>> >> For reasons I  really don't understand, the xml for rfc5661 does
not
>> include rfc reference from external libraries.   It includes them
inline,
>> so a new rfc derived from that xml  file will not include DOIs.
>>
>> > Yes.  All these RFC references would be updated by the RFC editor
into
>> current references.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's not a problem for Adam's procedure :-).   The RFC candidate
>> considred by the IESG would still match
>>
>> rfc5661.   Then, during RFC editing, the reference section could be
>> revised to include the DOI's.
>>
>> >> That is not a problem for Adam's procedure, but it may be for the
IESG
>> or the RFC editor.   I hope that, in processing RFC’s using Adam's
>> procedure, people will overlook the lack of DOIs in the same way that
they
>> overlook other aspects of the document that would prevent a new
document of
>> that form from being published.
>>
>> >AFAICT, they can’t, as the RFC editor has committed to providing
DOIs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please see above:
>>
>>    - The IESG doesn't have to deal with the DOI diffs, since it won't
>>    see them.
>>    - The RFC editor would create DOI diffs but not be bound by Adam's
>>    procedure in doing so.
>>
>> Where this might be a problem is in document where the existing xml
uses
>> external reference libraries.   That avoids the need for the RFC to
do
>> anything to provide the DOI's other that updating the libraries.
However
>> the IESG will see the diffs resulting from the inclusion of DOI's so
I
>> would hope that Adam's document is clear thar they should not be
considered
>> "spurous".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 12:57 PM Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>
wrote:
>>
>> Hi Julian,
>>
>> > FWIW, I disagree (but I realize that I'm probably in a minority).
The
>> > problem with Markdown is that the simple things are easy, but
everything
>> > else gets messy. I'm looking forward to see how you kram (pun
intended)
>> > the V3 features into your tool…
>>
>> Do I have to?
>>
>> If an author wants to use a V3 feature that does not lend itself to
>> authoring in markdown, they can always put the XML tags right into
their
>> markdown source.
>>
>> >>>> but that was the way things were done in 2010.
>> >>>
>> >>> I’m prepared to stick with that, unless there is something better
>> about the alternatives.
>> >>
>> >> Right, for a minor update, digging out the v1 tools and finding a
>> platform where they can still run may actually be the best way to
proceed.
>> >
>> > All you need is a TCL processor. Works fine over here on a newly
>> > installed notebook with Windows 10 and Cygwin.
>>
>> Haven’t tried that in a while…
>> Works for me, too (macOS 10.13.6, on a small document, with the usual
>> formatting differences from v2…).
>> Good to know.
>> (Although I have heard people have had problems on other platforms
>> recently.)
>>
>> Grüße, Carsten
>>
>>
>>
>