Re: [rfc-i] getting SVG of RFC diagrams

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 23 November 2023 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 75965C14CEFE for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 08:12:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 xZZF8MstRMIn for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 08:12:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (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 F1AB3C14F693 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 08:12:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.145] (p548dcbf2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.203.242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Sbjmd1KQ7zDCcR; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:12:01 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <28DAF5C6-61E7-4EFE-85CB-28A914582495@vpnc.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:12:00 +0100
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 722448720.7417279-a963c4578454baf8fd3a27ee47af7530
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1F6974AE-08F8-4A07-B2EF-DBECF2374340@tzi.org>
References: <310371.1700735021@dyas> <6062AA58-6798-4B82-9FE3-6FA1AF05F7CD@vpnc.org> <B67B9F9D-6B0F-4B35-A92E-95982BC1EB10@tzi.org> <28DAF5C6-61E7-4EFE-85CB-28A914582495@vpnc.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/NpHobDu25hzwgywRU6e_lPu6bqE>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] getting SVG of RFC diagrams
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:12:10 -0000

On 2023-11-23, at 16:43, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> 
> RFC 7992 is one of the policies that governs the RFC Series.

I don’t think RFC 7992 knows about <artset, and about why you’d want to have different identifiers for each of the artwork branches in there.
(It is also dangerous to take the RFC 799x specifications as gospel,
e.g., RFC 7991 says that slugifiedName attribute values always have to start with “n-“, while since RFC 8650 they have always started with “name-“.)

So I’m not sure how taking RFC 7992 at face value helps the current discussion.

As I said, I’m less interested in kludging something into what the current scripture says than in identifying significant concepts such as attachments and/or extractable components, which we partially have implemented, but not turned into first-class concepts.

Grüße, Carsten