IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Rswg] Making progress on the v3 format

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Thu, 05 January 2023 00:04 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: rswg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rswg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD07C151527 for <rswg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jan 2023 16:04:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TSTdAlGN9ZFY for <rswg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jan 2023 16:04:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppa2.lax.icann.org (ppa2.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE779C151524 for <rswg@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 4 Jan 2023 16:04:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.6]) by ppa2.lax.icann.org (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTPS id 30504RbV020149 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rswg@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 00:04:27 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.20; Wed, 4 Jan 2023 16:04:25 -0800
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.1118.020; Wed, 4 Jan 2023 16:04:25 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: RFC Series WG <rswg@rfc-editor.org>
Thread-Topic: Making progress on the v3 format
Thread-Index: AQHZIJlF7rjlBRqa00OdNEMv5R+8Ig==
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 00:04:25 +0000
Message-ID: <B5C18C8E-B2A6-4A9E-BBEA-4BD3AA02733B@icann.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2D821CCCB59B3A48AB951CB7096ED936@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.923,Hydra:6.0.545,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2023-01-04_07,2023-01-04_02,2022-06-22_01
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rswg/JgBeTNdUw7r9JjE149BHyseLFfM>
Subject: [Rswg] Making progress on the v3 format
X-BeenThere: rswg@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RFC Series Working Group \(RSWG\)" <rswg.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rswg>, <mailto:rswg-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rswg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rswg@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rswg-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rswg>, <mailto:rswg-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 00:04:30 -0000

Greetings again. Many weeks ago, before the <u> and <bcp14> semantics discussions started, Jay Daley proposed a way forward for the formats at:
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rswg/gspp4uvuqkNEnwzAyyrazSkEwOE

The proposal got a reasonable amount of support, so I have updated my personal draft draft-hoffman-rfc-format-framework-as-implemented to reflect it. The new version is here:
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-rfc-format-framework-as-implemented/

Note that I'm updating my draft to Jay's proposal because the WG seems to like the proposal, not because I do. I'm trying to keep my document in line with what the WG wants in case the WG wants to adopt a "way forward" document. (My personal preference would be to publish draft-irse-draft-irse-xml2rfcv3-implemented as an RFC and then work only on v4.)

Comments are welcome. If what I have put here doesn't match what people expected from Jay's proposal, or if tweaks are desired, it is easy for me to keep revving this. If there is a desire to adopt this as a WG work item, that's great, but we will have to wait for the xml2rfc tool to be updated to allow Editorial track drafts.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email