Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Tools Team Report -- 29 April 2019

Julian Reschke <> Mon, 29 April 2019 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 030431206D2; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O07vn_9yD3Co; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5DC71206C5; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=badeba3b8450; t=1556566189; bh=Memsv0p1MY9C41fgf/Ih4oSdmipJm6tQLRxGKIVpJQw=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=PcjWkyX3ZAvUUnT2GupVBoWOnaepED0k6wd7uI2ytUCn9n9DwbOwUES6+c/cHZ9JU WpVdiZ/zWtFUAMhVBGkqLv+phKalasidkGdOK8ByZaKOqPxw+pKC+W0EIPeq0qwP72 3tIuRyDqgxMHJP3u9sgGv6xmV6onv4Oh3MK1Vu7s=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [] ([]) by (mrgmx101 []) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MEKZg-1hacIm3XNw-00FS7v; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 21:29:49 +0200
To: Russ Housley <>
Cc: IETF Chair <>, IESG <>, IETF Tools Development <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Julian Reschke <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 21:29:42 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:btCgP+gv8SKmmBLQJhXC5bUaUAafXz92rr0DFnMy7yrfqo5CH3o QDsIEdVPEi4oDdzekmYXVZGpAXj98RQToCOLfQjE2gHBxtYhekcKvB5AcPTplYVz1XlIhP0 UL4uOSVkNT/69/l+++KbtNePex3MIrD6yQS8LIzaN2jp/DsfIZHYze/UggAL4c6pGUuuDsi RSgEY1nq8us6NMWKegs5g==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:ejo8E4VZL+w=:RaTaN1nTRYHN4W3k6TWJ27 tpIvGdayQqKOiTLn6yNf+3+SK9GMjsupfmo5vCq8lozLbtCRd1cIc1d+EVg1ByBHN21AslOvF 5pi+0ZUC7DWvGTVFco+UIS1TtvALyWKkI0965TSGEWV5t1Qjee5upft/uAl9fLpONWGxPhCnE nACdJeXxYy4Yqj7crpf7UbB39qXL/Y9D1bVZL9nt+EaMv+FFd84aUKc9QLtV4gzXcduYhk5Pn /ofM9IC9yfOKjVt3EdgoJBRRhI7arpPJBcKO20ieMjzF/AnYEd5BWtrCtHWeyIst9QK1h0u5L C3FJ2/w5/ICDUYXc2YWH26nyCIsFqLIszB4hQCSFq505NpgzLbCLdjTfyTrTNOpnNh0gioDex icUtKiAFL9jzMoDTNGCO0cG+0Clpr7ydOTU2owY4eY/MGbcs8ewoi6GXDqPtNOdwOEtW0362m MDI+cqD+xLS4Hzrxefr129gXpbqroDhJMBP4hxmwc0HS6PDjhtwy1d/nlEoiWvI3NR4pwSjan Kfh9ga/cXCMhp0zoeVUoQu9t+L6LTx87kBYCQMx16Tj0OZZZWXO2Xses8uAUd6708Inoyl5Vq ll1geGpo4E5ifayxkLfZYgjBqhOnA0juWcuR5Y+obvrrSZmv2zKM9Vp2USXxNtaJzZuWd4NiV 5vNLHHRSwprONOxlszJEC6GB1Sa8XLf0z+tBGri8QzkzpJXUFXSuHGbsC72QORHBmZe+QpxC4 GknhVAIMFTqhP8o7Qs1Q0EPhzUrUgAjzz4rlOdv39q/8PiGToMGl1QWd+DBcb/eE+GD/W3XbN CT9TpPCTfZjs+OeeleKxEYE896DV/Un+X+G4QO1cNevTzY/wrs8vkU2/NrpbAmcZ5WM71h3US HW8L1pN7fxFJ09OfHwEzi8+7iIeRe1+oSztJOIAdmyYT+3xqMfT0s3XkcwISTRCvrz2QHRMVw mMbaQkTBTaA==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Tools Team Report -- 29 April 2019
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Tools Development list server <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:30:00 -0000

On 29.04.2019 20:27, Russ Housley wrote:
> ...
> Julian:
> Authors can currently use the implementation of xml2rfc to submit an I-D.  The question is at what point will the IESG be comfortable with that format for an approved I-D.  I assume that significant discussion between the RFC Editor and the IESG will be needed to answer that question.  And, if there are actions that need to be taken before that point, tehy need to be identified so we can find the resources to make them happen.
> ...

At some point, we need updated versions of RFC 7991 (and related docs)
that actually describe precisely what the RFC format *is*. To get there,
we should review what's different right now, discuss that, and decide
how to resolve the differences. In some cases, it will likely mean to
agree on the proposed change implemented in xml2rfc (and properly
document it); but in some other cases I'd expect more discussion.

Best regards, Julian