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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 13 February 2020 20:14 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 6D582120289 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:14:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 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, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com
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 AOWi2UCp2cUQ for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:14:25 -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 841041201CE for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:14:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0048F406DB; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:13:59 -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 507DFF406DB for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:13:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 vEU42UsqIAIf for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:13:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42f.google.com (mail-pf1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42f]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D71EBF406D7 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:13:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id y5so3606520pfb.11 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:14:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qas6qGcQY+9yj+Z4N7SION4LsXftZ9QBjA+6OqQl+/o=; b=TrRV82NYWMQW1Ha5brJRDmL3PcEDGJNMOobEfA25YATFFLqdI8Qr0gH2PubiCnX01/ /7JtSOalnBowgn6llYikYWJtLerVDkqhRrDPVHSR35DvhWMLh61O4+/PKnlfsYYVdlRk Nap4vdc77bGLxwSuKcyUyLN5ASN1tN0jUtN8EetS9E1z5IAFN7hA3+kO27BvRaLgLdkB 5TNIWtvnY8dfVL1jmxwwFC9pi/vcSLqXZbasydAyQxBu+ASGIimhQNrVjfqjmCrSo/kf l27Si5O5RhnOJX6GcqI9/uJ4cmG7nVlMKy6K9N7pQ/srYoOYlzG/er0IWc5rtBjXSmuY TFFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qas6qGcQY+9yj+Z4N7SION4LsXftZ9QBjA+6OqQl+/o=; b=p3iR/hlO4MPzvBgtySi0HIg0ARjbqDOzNnMdvxhcNIQe/Mq7faDXIQ1ZPL2BEWamQh Z3qLo4GkN+AowVc9PnM7BKydapQpL/qyBoqxLpIxOD5zKLYacr4ljYoLGAp0DKQCGqaC F65H/QCdGnIrbfkIQGQ2PKazBf7bOmamzBtaKU4LRMeLaRteoTNp6Mz5cKtKAr0xV+R2 qLtpqfx1mvJLS0zLE+MLGphDexY0RvXRM3qTA0R4Ur7fRxWt4nW7wsRCkoXIu56Zk/sC LH6BcsLo9CJq2nHpyKfv3m8GMXai0sV3jJYG7mXr42eHnj0j5NUZVto3jc487SQ7mZE2 gEpQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVolo5HG4EmhGn6kzMYT/Eq9c7wgD6d+OX+PP9IKSRqKP54y4Sn ZlZCWtGs7ZY3c7raIxyGQ7E=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy0n+tk80BVBEXUpsOqAIceS4a5hPirE2Bjj2S94P/6Wfy1okz+/Eeb4RGJaJTi1ru5nUjkdw==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:e414:: with SMTP id r20mr15380529pfh.154.1581624861547; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:14:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.25.143]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m128sm4186738pfm.183.2020.02.13.12.14.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:14:20 -0800 (PST)
To: Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>
References: <4D336E41-401D-487D-A931-CD57477D20BE@mnot.net> <FC7C2C96-001A-4DF8-8E3F-A3CC4E96F0EF@encrypted.net>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57ce444e-4ee9-26c5-9e76-ae6906e69159@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 09:14:19 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <FC7C2C96-001A-4DF8-8E3F-A3CC4E96F0EF@encrypted.net>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB
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: RSOC <rsoc@iab.org>
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>

Sarah,

This is not about the technical aspect of your message.

Can you clarify why this is RSOC business? I don't understand where it fits in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6635#section-3.1. I would have expected any proposals to come from the (acting) RSE.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 14-Feb-20 08:10, 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@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest