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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 29 April 2019 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB62120751 for <tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i9bW8fZaszIl for <tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB12E120749 for <tools-development@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A72E6300AE9 for <tools-development@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 15:39:49 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id UgQz465L0OmA for <tools-development@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 15:39:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (unknown [138.88.156.37]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3969300400; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 15:39:47 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <12975349-5822-30e7-806f-d4c8da8fbe73@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 15:58:04 -0400
Cc: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF Tools Development <tools-development@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AA78D3B5-3E46-47DA-B8D5-3BB99C33FED9@vigilsec.com>
References: <FF8A2C65-783D-4B6C-8FF5-EDA2FF6FF931@vigilsec.com> <4d3fe84f-bfe2-d961-4bd2-09451304c9b2@gmx.de> <668B1A33-4662-44BC-97D0-D12718CBE815@vigilsec.com> <12975349-5822-30e7-806f-d4c8da8fbe73@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-development/ao9HZTlorhFFI5wXqw0NHDRD7ME>
Subject: Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Tools Team Report -- 29 April 2019
X-BeenThere: tools-development@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Tools Development list server <tools-development.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-development>, <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-development/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-development@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development>, <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:58:22 -0000


> On Apr 29, 2019, at 3:29 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Yes, I agree, but I do not believe that the tools team has the lead on that discussion.  Once the discussion comes to a close, if any changes are needed to xml2rfc, then the ball comes back to the tools team.

Russ