[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-framework-02 feedback
bclaise at cisco.com (Benoit Claise) Thu, 28 January 2016 09:55 UTC
From: "bclaise at cisco.com"
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:55:06 +0100
Subject: [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-framework-02 feedback
Message-ID: <56A9E57A.1030603@cisco.com>
Dear all, Disclaimer: this is the first time I read those RFC format documents, I've not been following the rfc-interest mailing list, and I'm reading the documents in sequence (*) __- Editorial: Key changes to the publication of RFCs are highlighted, and a transition plan that will take the Series from a plain-text, ASCII- only format to the new formats is described [RFC-INTEREST]. Do you want to say: "... is discussed on the rfc-interest mailing list [RFC-INTEREST]" By using "is described [RFC-INTEREST]", I was not too sure whether I should read the entire mailing list to understand the transition plan. Hopefully not :-) - Editorial: OLD: Input was received through the rfc-interest mailing list, as well as in several face-to-face sessions at IETF meetings. NEW: Input was received through the rfc-interest mailing list [RFC-INTEREST], as well as in several face-to-face sessions at IETF meetings. - I read "self-contained" in o The final XML will be self-contained. For instance, all features that reference externally-defined input will be expanded. This includes all uses of xinclude, src attributes (such as in <artwork> or <sourcecode> elements), include-like processing instructions, and externally defined entities. What about errata? Contained or not in the XML? I was puzzled because I read this early: HTML will be the focus of providing the most flexible set of features for an RFC, including JavaScript to provide pointers to errata and other metadata. Reading again, I found my answer: The final XML file produced by the RFC Editor will be considered the canonical format for RFCs I guess I was after some text like this (maybe obvious now that I researched this further): The final XML will not be updated with post-publication metadata, such as errata or obsoletion. Alternatively, OLD: The final XML will be self-contained. NEW: The final XML will be self-contained with all the information known at publication time. - Section 10.2. "Testing and Transition" mentions: Authors are not required to submit their approved drafts in an XML format, though they are strongly encouraged to do so; plain-text will also remain an option for the foreseeable future. However, documents submitted as plain-text cannot include such features as SVG artwork. So plain-text will remain an option for the "testing and transition period" only, or even after? Because I see section 10.3 "Completion" section that says: Authors may submit XML (preferred) or plain text. We should make it clear. Also, I believe we need a big warning section to authors who still want to use .txt: - extra work for RPC - no CVG artwork available - No HTML file for your current draft and future RFC ("The HTML will not be derived from the plain-text publication format") - No PDF file for your current draft and future RFC ("The PDF file will not be derived from the plain-text publication format.") - maybe some others? Regards, Benoit (*) Reading list: 1. The big picture - - Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework", http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc-framework/ 2. The underlying vocabulary - - Hoffman, P., "The 'XML2RFC' version 3 Vocabulary", https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-xml2rfc/ 3. The outputs - - Hildebrand, J. and P. Hoffman, "HyperText Markup Language Request For Comments Format?, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-html-rfc/ - - Flanagan, H., "Requirements for Plain Text RFCs?, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc-plaintext/ - - Hansen, T., Masinter, L., and M. Hardy, "PDF for an RFC Series Output Document Format?, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hansen-rfc-use-of-pdf/ Note that the filename may change to an IAB document soon. - - Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC", https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-svg-rfc/ 4. Generalized requirements - - Flanagan, H., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs", https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-rfc-nonascii-00.pdf - - Flanagan, H., ?CSS Requirements for RFCs?, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc-css/ 5. Workflow and tools (note that the examples draft will not become an RFC, but is necessary for the project) - - Hildebrand, J. and P. Hoffman, "RFC v3 Prep Tool Description", https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfcv3-preptool/ - - Hoffman, P. and T. Hansen, "Examples of the ?XML2RFC' Version 2 and 3 Vocabularies?, http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-rfcexamples/ 6. The Statements of Work - -http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/rfced/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20160128/731cdf29/attachment.html>
- [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-framework-02 feedback Benoit Claise
- [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-framework-02 feedback Heather Flanagan