IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] CORRECTED RE: Handling of large code sections ...

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 25 May 2022 22:58 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 ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582DBC07AFB0 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2022 15:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1653519489; bh=0JHzY9+f3SLHp+0yaynvJq8U5qDcTV+S2BLcYqUDH2s=; h=Date:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=OGXxIu0YF12SEYuqeB4/qN6zGIJK5GsByrmd3Oqj12vxxr4IuNsf4KWMKJ7pcOuDM eDYu/dg6JcOZ7PgUn9iSICHksHUuZpUiD+VU3wi8XCr146UzI1WHBwl5fx/Atz+n2K L/6bA0/buQAFrL6Ps+L0vD7cjpFHA9nQxHdPOl08=
X-Mailbox-Line: From rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Wed May 25 15:58:09 2022
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2755AC07B7DD; Wed, 25 May 2022 15:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1653519489; bh=0JHzY9+f3SLHp+0yaynvJq8U5qDcTV+S2BLcYqUDH2s=; h=Date:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=OGXxIu0YF12SEYuqeB4/qN6zGIJK5GsByrmd3Oqj12vxxr4IuNsf4KWMKJ7pcOuDM eDYu/dg6JcOZ7PgUn9iSICHksHUuZpUiD+VU3wi8XCr146UzI1WHBwl5fx/Atz+n2K L/6bA0/buQAFrL6Ps+L0vD7cjpFHA9nQxHdPOl08=
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0601FC07B7DD for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2022 15:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.956
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.956 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.857, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zGbPHE0Mvpym for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2022 15:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA493C07B7D8 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 May 2022 15:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4L7mgb3d7sz6Gmy6; Wed, 25 May 2022 15:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1653519483; bh=LU1heFm+amGi4xpcUyTj8Q7Zar8cTx7JCd5o0KACw1Y=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=qxxN60YjLKUK/YjD7UkeKBzAL8FDC2geA4ZnURlWn6e3gMpIEzwdEG/3sD7VeSwVm 3RlW5u9xoYVl9QyXIZV49VlPo5NUcf8pC1v2lxO9onaXsrRH3k7YR34O9lBImOrf4i Nz+Ou+dnDl7839q+3C4Fg1r6bOJGIVf0dFHhyPrc=
X-Quarantine-ID: <3ee0vI-WU6Jl>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.23.181] (50-233-136-230-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4L7mgZ73vkz6GCnl; Wed, 25 May 2022 15:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <8d635a5b-f610-5afb-2d3d-4a3adf9e006f@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 18:58:01 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Paul Duffy (paduffy)" <paduffy=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
References: <MN2PR11MB3757A5453DC664D0EA92CF34B9D69@MN2PR11MB3757.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3757A5453DC664D0EA92CF34B9D69@MN2PR11MB3757.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/DIlV78VDtOEJstrMBgb_FgjbrCY>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] CORRECTED RE: Handling of large code sections ...
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8609457240416843776=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

 From where I sit, there is an important and unstated distinction that 
affects which path makes sense.  Is the code needed to understand the 
RFC, or in some other way to be considered normative.  If so, as far as 
I can tell it must be part of the RFC.

On the other hand, if the code is informative e.g. as an example of how 
one might implement the RFC, then probably a pointer would suffice.

Yours,

Joel

On 5/25/2022 5:17 PM, Paul Duffy (paduffy) wrote:
>
> *From:* rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org> *On Behalf 
> Of *Paul Duffy (paduffy)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 25, 2022 5:15 PM
> *To:* RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
> *Subject:* [rfc-i] Handling of large code sections ...
>
> Folks
>
> Is it acceptable for a draft to externally reference large sections of 
> code (say, parked in Github) versus inlining into the draft?  The 
> FORMER makes for easy access and input into the code’s respective tool 
> chain, versus messy cut/paste of the LATTER.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email