Re: IPv6-only IETF web server for publishing an Internet Draft?

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

Le 14/05/2018 à 12:47, John C Klensin a écrit :
> 
> 
> --On Monday, May 14, 2018 11:19 +0200 Alexandre Petrescu
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> John,
>>
>> Thank you for the reply.
>>
>> I understand the need of universal reachability, separation of
>> experiments, and avoid of appeals.
>>
>> Allow me to wonder though whether the non-IETF XML format went
>> through such experimenting before being enforced at IETF scale.
> 
> While I'm not sure what the two have to do with each other or
> exactly what you are referring to, if you are referring to what
> is known as the xml2rfc format,
> 
> (1) It is not "being enforced" (in either version).   You are
> free to prepare and submit I-Ds, or even final pre-publication
> RFC drafts in plain ASCII text format without getting anywhere
> near XML.
> 
> (2) And, yes, there has been extensive experimentation and
> discussion.  Some of us are fairly unhappy with the new version
> and its documentation, but that doesn't change the history of
> discussion, documentation, and, apparently, rough consensus.

At this time, the submission system will not accept only the xml, it 
wants the txt too.  Otherwise it complains about draft name and/or title.

(yes, I was wrong about many other things I said earlier; yes, the 
submission system works ok if accessed with a client that does only IPv6 
and that is connected on a network that does only IPv6; I just checked 
from a car network by submitting an Internet Draft).

Alex
> 
>     john
> 
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> Le 04/05/2018 à 13:48, John C Klensin a écrit :
>>> Personal opinion only...
>>>
>>> A key part of the intent of Internet Drafts is that they be
>>> generally available to anyone interested on the Internet.  I
>>> understand the motivations for experiments and demonstrations
>>> but, if something is posted that is deliberately inaccessible
>>> to someone who cannot not or will not use IPv6, it
>>> invalidates the function of the document as a
>>> generally-accessible I-D and presumably could result in a
>>> process problem (or appeal) if there were any attempt to move
>>> it into an IETF consensus process.
>>>
>>> Please do demonstrations and experiments in another way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>