Re: [rfc-i] RFC 8661 in AUTH48, was: [xml2rfc-dev] [v3] Please help review v3 files

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 19 September 2019 09:35 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 A1ACE120912 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.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 fmL4BAUBpWAu for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
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 04DD112008D for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22155B80DF5; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
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 1AB8FB80DF5; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.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 OhRUu8UhLFcX; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B694EB80DF4; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.140.165]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id x8J9ZMWX027600 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1568885736; x=1568972136; i=@elandsys.com; bh=/zui4M2QGwAdYGPJRx0dARM8LwSEN5QdJt8lh29PXcE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=fih0fGG+SBw71nsL+ixbbGZifv1HlfPaWn2QXkcjASB6wyj3G9TxqZzGB3yOqJLzt JxollqJTV1airjoaBch7SXy60u8fatL6e8o/Yb7cBFAyB+MiWogUvr4fvd2U1rbX5T 25qwmgC/Vxv4V/KEVK1ZaFzUPha90J4RxrIiPMuU=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190919023037.0bfb9c68@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:35:08 -0700
To: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <aa7f25f9-6568-5866-b3ae-bee1503dd59d@gmx.de>
References: <6D7CF9A5-F8FA-4D78-9001-ADC7CD0B2A36@amsl.com> <6AFC0271-060C-4A2F-84EE-CB40DD328039@amsl.com> <eaf9e970-c570-4ee8-096c-ec70e85c4af5@gmx.de> <dabe2baa-9d71-0089-a486-844a3b24a08b@gmx.de> <D7552A58-F10A-4600-962B-151DAB4DA6CB@rfc-editor.org> <aa7f25f9-6568-5866-b3ae-bee1503dd59d@gmx.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] RFC 8661 in AUTH48, was: [xml2rfc-dev] [v3] Please help review v3 files
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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Hello,
At 01:22 PM 18-09-2019, Julian Reschke wrote:
>On 18.09.2019 22:09, Heather Flanagan wrote:
>
>>The RFC Editor discussed this internally; we recognize it as a 
>>problem for more than just RFC-to-be 8661. That said, for now we're 
>>going to use a work around, as the implementing of a new way of 
>>handling the role of 'contributor' is outside the existing scope of work.
>
>Well, the issue has been known for several years now, so declaring it
>out-of-scope is a bit weird. Note that this is a regression from v2,
>where line breaks could be forced inside regular text, so at least no
>abuse of <artwork> was needed.

Given that this is a known problem and it is not that new, why is 
outside the existing scope of work?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy 

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