Re: [rfc-i] The upcoming transition to xml2rfc v3

Jim Schaad <> Fri, 06 September 2019 05:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15EBA120ADE for <>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 22:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.951
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qye43GEuNcs3 for <>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 22:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92BBE1208E1 for <>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 22:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB02B80CE3; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 22:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF46BB80CE2; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 22:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W5vlx0uipgSK; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 22:58:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13855B80CD8; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 22:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 22:58:38 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <>
To: 'RFC Editor' <>, 'RFC Interest' <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 22:58:37 -0700
Message-ID: <04c001d56478$21b94220$652bc660$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQHjiufJjR1py0XrsfdtwsZCpnWvYacB2gTw
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: []
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] The upcoming transition to xml2rfc v3
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: "'RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel)'" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Sender: rfc-interest <>

Will the RFC Editor potentially be editing output to make the v3 vocabulary look cleaner?  I know of a kramdown file that is having some formatting problems, at least in part due to how it is creating the xml file.


-----Original Message-----
From: rfc-interest <> On Behalf Of RFC Editor
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 9:23 PM
To: RFC Interest <>;
Cc:;; IESG <>; RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel) <>;; RFC Editor <>
Subject: [rfc-i] The upcoming transition to xml2rfc v3


With the RFC format transition approaching quickly, we want to share some of the transition details.  

The RFC Editor will be switching to using xml2rfc v3 [0] [1] [2] to create RFCs. (Authors do not have to change what they submit as an

There will be new publication formats (HTML, PDF, and text) and an XML source file, which uses the v3 vocabulary as described in [3] and [4]. 

Next week the RFC Editor's code base and database will be updated.
From 16 September 2019, the RFC Editor will be ready to publish in the new format.  See the transition details [6] for more information.  

For more details on why this change is taking place, see the "RFC Format Framework” [5]. 

* How does this affect you?  
Please see the transition details page [6], especially if you currently have a document in the RFC Editor queue [7].

* What if you find a bug in xml2rfc? 
Please add a ticket to the issue tracker [8] or send mail to the xml2rfc-dev list [9].

[0] Tool: [1] Intro:
[2] FAQ:
[3] RFC 7991:
[4] Implementation Notes:
[5] RFC 7990:
[6] Transition Details:
[7] Current Queue:
[8] Issue Tracker:
[9] XML Development Mailing list:

Thank you.
RFC Editor
rfc-interest mailing list

rfc-interest mailing list