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

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

All good then. Thanks. 

-- 

Jay Daley

IETF Executive Director 

On 13 Feb 2023, at 23:09, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:



On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 2:48 PM Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:

Seems a practical way forward.  A few points below:

> On 13 Feb 2023, at 20:28, 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

Would we assign that a version number? If so then would it replace v3 or be a v3.1 with no documents ever having been published in v3?  Before answering this you might want to read further on.

This proposal takes no position on this topic. I simply used "3.1" because that seemed

to be the version with the most traction. Perhaps we should say "NG" :)

 

> 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.

Wouldn’t that draft also be the basis for 1. above?

Yes, in the appendix although initially the appendix part of the doc would be empty.

> - 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 we did remove something, then documents in the new grammar would no longer be backwards compatible (unless that thing had never been used) with those in the as-is grammar. I would prefer then that we numbered it v4 to signal that. If we were to keep the version number 3.1 then we would have

- v3/7990 which was never used for a document

I do not personally know this to be true, but I am prepared to believe it is.

- version ”as-is” which all the current documents are in

- v3.1 which none of the existing documents are in and which all future ones will be

I agree with you that there are these three versions. I think what numbers to assign

to them is an orthogonal question.

-Ekr

Jay

--
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
>
> - 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
> [e-mail]
> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rswg" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rswg