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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 29 April 2019 18:27 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 84A0A12064F for <tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 11:27:29 -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 OuC0eJB0qJF0 for <tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 11:27:27 -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 45DCD120645 for <tools-development@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 11:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE63300AE2 for <tools-development@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:09:09 -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 AFT68Ljp-yL0 for <tools-development@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:09:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (unknown [138.88.156.37]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BA5A3004C7; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:09:07 -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: <4d3fe84f-bfe2-d961-4bd2-09451304c9b2@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:27:24 -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: <668B1A33-4662-44BC-97D0-D12718CBE815@vigilsec.com>
References: <FF8A2C65-783D-4B6C-8FF5-EDA2FF6FF931@vigilsec.com> <4d3fe84f-bfe2-d961-4bd2-09451304c9b2@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/ndbF6S9ctHvZiIIl94UN1J0PKsk>
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 18:27:30 -0000


> On Apr 29, 2019, at 2:09 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> On 29.04.2019 19:32, Russ Housley wrote:
>> ...
>> 3. RFC Services Projects
>>    - Support for the v3 schema was enabled for I-D submission during
>>      IETF 104.  The IESG needs to make a policy decision about when I-Ds
>>      in this new format can be submitted to the IESG for publication on
>>      the IETF stream.
> > ...
> 
> Sorry for being pedantic, but we currently have *three* different things
> that can be called v3:
> 
> - the format defined in RFC 7991
> - the format defined in RFC 7991bis (abandoned for now)
> - what happens to be accepted by xml2rfc (which has implementation
> notes, but no proper specification)

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.

Russ