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

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Thu, 13 February 2020 19:52 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 E2215120219 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:52:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, 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 (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=iecc.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 Rtne2bHFDqmp for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:52:24 -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 7D12D1201CE for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:52:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E0EF406D5; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:51:58 -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 41309F406F2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:30:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.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 kOuumkxQv5Ms for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:30:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C940F406F0 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:30:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 78888 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2020 19:31:01 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=13426.5e45a3f5.k2002; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=KpBBEOplsUF5ZkOigEmcgf/MG5d0BuGPI6CMIEFh8+0=; b=tLq9IViColUurfy2bInPTYx8Lbg3ZppqH3ed31uJtV9ULDvPiusoY9uL1RGbfKKVtoztMyjosXsV7iYyxqQLQ2vO3sqmnOV0VOBsQAVUS/t/hvv7qAoa9bm4decnRpiqMHfaNphi3sWzkplc2amgubw9mC9XKoVBexOyeksxJdDETMWGMcTHkeHOXzvhXjoGNxcJj2dUxHSiRtMaF+SChhGfShAs7k0B8QlVDqOg5MPN8jRp7WoyS5qCxyGrmYHU
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 13 Feb 2020 19:31:00 -0000
Date: 13 Feb 2020 14:31:00 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.374.2002131428250.85806@ary.qy>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU2GXaSTSH_CdHmZWutObUBS6ri7Xs92jRjzFOHmqY0F5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D336E41-401D-487D-A931-CD57477D20BE@mnot.net> <FC7C2C96-001A-4DF8-8E3F-A3CC4E96F0EF@encrypted.net> <CAA=duU2GXaSTSH_CdHmZWutObUBS6ri7Xs92jRjzFOHmqY0F5g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.99999 (OSX 374 2019-10-27)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:51:58 -0800
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] 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: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, RSOC <rsoc@iab.org>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.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>

> 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.

There are definitely changes to the XML grammar, and I agree that if the 
XML is supposed to be archival, we should make the XML agree with the 
final spec.

This won't change the text and I don't think it's likely to change the 
appearance significantly, e.g., the page breaks in some output formats 
might change, but they're not normative.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest