IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] [Ietf-and-github] New Version Notification for draft-kwatsen-git-xiax-automation-00.txt

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 08 March 2019 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 940C21277D9 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 13:08:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j9gzpI5duJ0B for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 13:08:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1B9A1275F3 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 13:08:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62969B82136; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 13:08:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB62B82135 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 13:08:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31c9S0czyPhg for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 13:08:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC2EAB82131 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 13:08:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost2.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.200.7]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x28L8bjx003174; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 22:08:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.217.106] (p54A6C2FE.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.166.194.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44GKq91WrWz1Bp8; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 22:08:37 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <010001695f07d926-00d6192b-ac68-42a2-b35d-4d855208b542-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 22:08:35 +0100
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 573772102.0053509-25a8c947ae52975a54886c8c82f1ce4c
Message-Id: <5C39CA88-10BB-4B38-A591-D2E033025826@tzi.org>
References: <155112114000.10633.2593235416875795961.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01000169261421c7-978ecbf5-dcc4-4738-ba58-f409ce6adaf1-000000@email.amazonses.com> <2e4a853c-6622-81e8-adf5-02deb3e1d6e3@gmx.de> <010001692a9f8f0f-a4ba1870-6959-4518-8503-6e30424b1ac9-000000@email.amazonses.com> <ea32731b-55cf-aa67-a87a-184dfbad6d49@gmx.de> <010001692ab8ef80-96b79bab-c831-4917-b5a2-edc3a37ab952-000000@email.amazonses.com> <c0ecb9bc-793e-fa36-c916-1027ec12ddea@joelhalpern.com> <ef58bede-02b8-dcb8-1ffd-eef921e9a715@levkowetz.com> <3849BD6A-DD18-4624-8ED6-87B968211B5B@stewe.org> <20aaf8c4-2b85-ac28-f780-37c37d62843b@levkowetz.com> <010001695f07d926-00d6192b-ac68-42a2-b35d-4d855208b542-000000@email.amazonses.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] [Ietf-and-github] New Version Notification for draft-kwatsen-git-xiax-automation-00.txt
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, "ietf-and-github@ietf.org" <ietf-and-github@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Hi Kent,

On Mar 8, 2019, at 21:39, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote:
> 
> I hope that this work seems interesting to you.   I don’t actually know, as there have been no comments to the effect yet.  

I now remember why I immediately forgot about xiax after having seen it:
It just does not apply to my workflow.

I do work in a strictly functional way.  There is a number of source files, and there is a Makefile (and possibly other configuration documents), which all are in version control and edited by humans (“precious”). The Makefile employs various tools to build (expendable) intermediates, run tests on them etc., and then finally the .txt file for submission.
The .xml file of course is also built as an intermediate (and will become more important in v3), but really the point is that I would never edit it; it is the result of a functional process.

The process as described has the disadvantage that it is more applicable to people who do software development (which, if somewhat state of the art, generally happens in the same way).  There might very well people who are comfortable with a mutating approach to draft generation (and, backed up with version control, that is probably quite workable).  It’s just not something I can very well comment on.

Being able to extract embedded code from an XML file is indeed important for me; please see Section 1.3 of RFC 8152 for an example of how this can be done with widely deployed tools.
I expect the RFC repository will at some point provide online versions of such tools.

Grüße, Carsten

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email