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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 26-May-22 10:58, Joel Halpern wrote:
>  From where I sit, there is an important and unstated distinction that affects which path makes sense.  Is the code needed to understand the RFC, or in some other way to be considered normative.  If so, as far as I can tell it must be part of the RFC.

Yes, unless the code is published in a way that satisfies the RFC2026 section 7.1.1 or 7.1.2 requirements for external specifications (including acceptable IPR conditions). In other words, the code would need to be listed in the downref registry following a 4-week last call.

> 
> On the other hand, if the code is informative e.g. as an example of how 
one might implement the RFC, then probably a pointer would suffice.

Even so, it becomes useless if the code repository goes away. I'd be very 
cautious about this, except in an Implementation Status section which goes away anyway.

    Brian

> 
> Yours,
> 
> Joel
> 
> On 5/25/2022 5:17 PM, Paul Duffy (paduffy) wrote:
>>
>> *From:* rfc-interest <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Paul Duffy (paduffy)
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 25, 2022 5:15 PM
>> *To:* RFC Interest <[e-mail]>
>> *Subject:* [rfc-i] Handling of large code sections ...
>>
>> Folks
>>
>> Is it acceptable for a draft to externally reference large sections of 
code (say, parked in Github) versus inlining into the draft?  The FORMER makes for easy access and input into the code’s respective tool chain, versus messy cut/paste of the LATTER.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest