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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 26 May 2022 01:11 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 17F61C3A5A0E for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2022 18:11:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1653527484; bh=O3FNAgk0cUEHi9O6S+3QX9ExYd/A9VvbMq5rwH53B1M=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=D9fwFeDA+87tJ80DOorY0FiuEwHdfB5ICxgewiL8qVm68HjJ/xC+qzed9wZXStskJ BS6ueMaakfy4qTwTIy3ABQgK/HaDpBW2a2tOefftWBqNAMdsF2BeEgV2ChYfbSukEV cPX9aFx9jyg/uO209O0xPbsMoilCx8Uw19aIin/M=
X-Mailbox-Line: From rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Wed May 25 18:11:24 2022
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA0D8C3A4430; Wed, 25 May 2022 18:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1653527483; bh=O3FNAgk0cUEHi9O6S+3QX9ExYd/A9VvbMq5rwH53B1M=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=gp1mqY2AqhboOUgm2BFtJd8xaP8hvptPDB2oFCC7gOumCm6LaFY0tUHGdOy0HKMrE effjZcxwMSPqrUdf3j0K4ooAVJArgoQUi4FDf3EsV6YlHdClF2VSizI2peASX0aq4K ztb55geErOZcIiVRqAvHSA4irCWu8iOWM9LkPI4o=
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 C31B2C3A4430 for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2022 18:11:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.85
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.85 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=akYbhIkW; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=1mvPaLrb
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 T-J9-Py2updP for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2022 18:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 C2C65C3A3D6C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 May 2022 18:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 37424 invoked from network); 26 May 2022 01:11:13 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=922d.628ed3b1.k2205; bh=EquMxEzpxSHffajtPmK8gjeVfKKOwXI07sW0WkZECq4=; b=akYbhIkWbYFDxn1iitq2yGMA5wEahAAB79EHHaT9G1BuOxqDOBsWJAKW78Ksfsv386fGFQrM+PlSd7nTxylP8ayatkr4HTFc9kwfkIk/5bhlVcYBPjDaSYploEfrrbcuT69O/b9xv4TZl5nHgmEzCTkw61lETHK8zIrAgCzyE6CWq7CA0GkV0LfriO5BmUrVU12BGXPl+cB8DcvGWumFm41iHVFd7AAGLM0Qj3CWxqbqMSvgZOXPKvjNJ/w2jjoMS2nBor9SDt2woiUNqjK91KJXr5PJG7VkSNSvakAyt2n8ZgePI1+JL20euSycyg+vLIhvMC3UUOKu1Jo6Td9Yxg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=922d.628ed3b1.k2205; bh=EquMxEzpxSHffajtPmK8gjeVfKKOwXI07sW0WkZECq4=; b=1mvPaLrbB0tZyBKqO5QLBTJQ16wuNmR2GTq0NHA3m3+zoO5shw3xcDxM/mCfCqd8hMv9rZv4CCKAVGqpkQW7ZYBOzSIPQ1MtlWKtJ609vNKjK4jjJpJy8iPxiWvDzRFOVvOgyqm0f06v9HNCPcZJQ7OTJS0YOMSj2Xot/8HaM1gTw43oTZ9bWmnq7Z8ovjSdwL0VktSLNntkgidzDyub5crQRYDSaVfumfKTHoSQIfHPtRbOnjUBZgM3u0UwD978LH5zOgbQ7KgLo/1Gp6vSpTzWamFpEPaS9vpqyUxI43O4S3Xk01UEZy8vVRPHCG8O0XQeFxWOdt+5OK+1AaeQwg==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 26 May 2022 01:11:12 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3672D41A7547; Wed, 25 May 2022 21:11:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 21:11:11 -0400
Message-Id: <20220526011112.3672D41A7547@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3757B0F15629CB1B0C270E93B9D69@MN2PR11MB3757.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/OXYJjapVfUOvlxwd31_54V4eK50>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] 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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

It appears that Paul Duffy (paduffy) <paduffy@cisco.com> said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Folks
>
>Is it acceptable for a draft to externally reference large sections of code (say, parked in Github) versus
>inlining into the draft?  The latter makes for easy access and input into the code's respective tool chain,
>versus messy cut/paste of the former.

Maybe.  We do allow <xi:include href=blah> to import external files, but there's no way to refer
to part of an external file.

R's,
John

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