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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Following up on this...

Can we please get any further comments for or against this proposal by
February 20th.

Thanks,
-Ekr








On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 12:27 PM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> 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
>