Re: [Rswg] Making progress on evolving the XML format

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 12:13 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Catching up on this -
>
> It seems not great to have them in the same document; how will people
> looking at the document in 10 years* know which part to pay attention to
> when they actually need to use the format?
>

I was expecting that the combination of having the consensus text in
the main body and then the old "for the record" stuff in the appendix,
plus explanatory text would make it clear.

-Ekr

>
> Cheers,
>
>
> * Yes, I'm being optimistic
>
> > On 13 Feb 2023, at 12:27 pm, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi RSWG members,
> >
> > Pete and I have been chatting about the best way forward for evolving
> > the XMLv3 grammar. We think that there's broad agreement that:
> >
> > 1. We need some document that describes the "as-is" xmlv3 format.
> >    - That document should be published in some form that implies
> >      it doesn't have consensus.
> >    - The WG should do the work of making sure that happens
> > 2. We need to work on a new format (v3.1?) that will have consensus.
> >
> > I think people are assuming that the new format will need an RFC but
> > there is not agreement on whether the "as-is" should be.
> >
> >
> > Pete and I would like to propose the following way forward, based
> > on a suggestion from Martin Thomson in January.
> >
> > - Adopt draft-irse-draft-irse-xml2rfcv3-implemented as a WG document
> >   to use as the basis for v3.1.
> >
> > - Everything that doesn't match RFC 7990 will be marked as
> >   "provisional". We go through all of these and either adopt them as
> >   having consensus or decline to make the change, in which case we
> >   move them to an Appendix.
> >
> > - If necessary, we can also update the I-D to make consensus changes
> >   to the as-is version on an "emergency" basis, though hopefully
> >   this will not be needed often.
> >
> > At the end of this process, we will have a document which describes
> > the consensus format and also an appendix which describes how "as
> > implemented" differs from the consensus format. These can be published
> > together as an RFC, which will provide archival forms of both but
> > without requiring that we publish an RFC of the current document while
> > the consensus version is still in flux. In the meantime, the ID
> > can serve as the definition of the current format.
> >
> > What do people think of this proposal?
> > -Ekr
> > --
> > rswg mailing list
> > rswg@rfc-editor.org
> > https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rswg
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>