Re: [rfc-i] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB

"Andrew G. Malis" <> Thu, 13 February 2020 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4DC120801 for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:18:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UhlKOWWzTGwF for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:17:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDFD0120810 for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:17:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F03BF406F3; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:17:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65F17F406F3 for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:17:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VZP9zrEBWu9Q for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:17:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::732]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 131C5F406F2 for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:17:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id u124so6274583qkh.13 for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:17:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PookFPifImnuGJQMdz7a/5bfNUW6cUj8TomrSYhnDb4=; b=djYie7CFeppKTfVIAGFSoTJivhD6AYjHqiNcvmfR4J7paKu0Ju9Av5u9yt1PKuopOb crv9o/KnnEbWdgJuBu3xPMGFA7HKQCUkYP9ZLyb0H3C966mC6+8HWWLz2r4uUsXhpJdp YRPhZ6R3v27XmA3bVCrCgnnYr2MkheC7ug2WFoWMprPfFFGT0CGQo7J2xbBCu6ky39PK eYCQjibK+Dskm1t934MLGTLImh2GjoW9XmzhkX5geUB2FpJxNaOVtmSAHz3Ke5ioNSJ7 wYmcZ5qSwm5S0fkM+5HLzoxFaWr8SCMrDMAWALZBStrIy+dhqkrTtJABi97WhwmFY883 1Sug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PookFPifImnuGJQMdz7a/5bfNUW6cUj8TomrSYhnDb4=; b=qFnh8AXWpxFsj1yF7o1jetRB5GgkKU6c9Z06y0UQZAR7MDrKlzULPOlVflNFrgjfx6 HImQEXVd4dAT86OmrJFZlBWKhDxzdYBFaz+CxqHm7BRaDZlp/JJ3gauWOmTbsi6TipFb xSbciwA4oIrVcoqlL4XCJ0CMY2Pl4B/O20pdKixscDupAqO2IfCCHMItCeVnOoIUnQ1W D9R5TAU33PIX9ZuoE61jHzUuE3EwkYTqK/kDY9aFrkZaIs6falR2aiUk2gey5pEs5Rfg FdBntS4ArOcdH23/je8mr3WX0YnGSqZN6F72xexKYu/ab8pCWnkDh0kukkqUJthhPV2Y 9ozw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWO1aZud8e8bj57shf6ARwFyDV7kWoAOZHPwDtJNftR7tIsaQtB kLkJrMLGo27+5nAMJ9kGYzK6wtQJbAm7wNom4Gk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyEw88mXak1rWKwXRM1Lj0Px34Oedoya7/3l5ogV1/Ys3J8vDecxVk/6V7o1CehrFTL2Mfk1YESa6FrIGm1aBI=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:4a48:: with SMTP id x69mr16553679qka.57.1581621475127; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:17:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:17:44 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Sarah Banks <>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Cc: RSOC <>, RFC Interest <>, Internet Architecture Board <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4227980129510724717=="
Sender: "rfc-interest" <>


Just my 2 cents. If we ever want to have a hope of being able to rerun
archived XML v3 RFCs through the processor, all interim v3 RFCs should be
checked once the final v3 vocabulary is determined and the corresponding
tools are available. This can be done perhaps just by rerunning them and
comparing the new result against the original result. If they're the same,
then no updates are needed. If they do differ, then the archived XML should
be corrected.


On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:10 PM Sarah Banks <> wrote:

> Hello IAB and RFC-interest community,
>         The RSOC has been following discussion of the issues encountered
> in deploying the v3 RFC format. These issues have necessitated several
> changes to the format as bugs and ambiguities are found. While we believe
> that this is necessary, we have a concern that the incremental nature of
> these changes will result in will result in RFCs published in more than one
> XML format over time, as the adjustments are made.
>         The Temporary RFC Series Project Manager is currently
> investigating how many of the already-executed as well as anticipated
> changes might result in backwards-incompatible changes to the format, to
> get a better sense of scale.
>         It could be that having multiple such formats in the corpus of
> RFCs will be an acceptable outcome; or, a decision could be made to
> re-publish the affected "interim format" RFCs in the final v3 format. We
> don't believe it's necessary to make that decision now, but we're sharing
> this information with the broader community for discussion.
> Thanks,
> Sarah
> For the RSOC
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest mailing list